Religion is a Mental Illness

[NoSurvivors]

85% of the world, not to mention 85.8% of your beloved America, believe in a god of some sort. Don't you think calling 85% of the world "crazy fucks" is a stupid idea?

[tzor]

What is a "convinced" atheist? I mean...I'm CONVINCED, but I also realize I could be wrong. So it doesn't seem to me that's a good term for a "non-agnostic atheist", which I presume it's supposed to be?

"Convinced" is a sloppy term; it probably best maps to "strong." I don't consider you a "strong" atheist, at least as it is commonly understood. (Dawkins is a strong atheist.) I would place you somewhere between weak and strong on the scale.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

[john9blue]

Re: the first bit to me

Yeah sure, but in western cultures where religion is predominantly christian, it is my experience that professing atheism tends towards the assumption by others that you are predominantly a non-christian flavour of atheist (if that makes any sense at all). That assumption is wrong for some atheists, but when a survey says about "convinced atheists" I would guess that a fair amount of the people that gave this answer were convinced about the non-existence of the biblical God rather than anything that could possibly fall under any definition of God ever made. Not everyone gives all this hokum much thought or time.

well, they probably should. it's intellectually dishonest to say that god can't possibly exist just because you had some bad experiences with fundamentalist christian parents as a teenager.

Re: the last bit to chang

This falls under the remit of how we judge a truth value of a claim. The following are very different:

- I believe X is true. The belief that X is true entails some philosophical consequences and I should be willling to defend those consequences if I wish to put forward my positive claim about the truth of X and have it widely accepted.

- I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to say if X is true or false. There are no further consequences to this belief except that I must honestly evaluate any further evidence put forward by those who believe that X is true.

my issue was that he was so apparently bothered by people who try to tell him how his beliefs are inconsistent, illogical, or indefensible, when he does the EXACT SAME THING to others. hypocrites, man...

[jonesthecurl]

Not exactly though I see where you're coming from -
All christians start from the same basic premise and the same sourcebooks. Of course they don't all agree with each other, but it is possible to point out things that, if they reject them, they're not being consistent.
Atheists don't have a basic reference work to test their atheism against.

For example, I would say (and have said before) that my basic position can be stated thusly: the universe appears to me not to need a god or gods to explain why it's the way it is. I see no reason to posit "god". I have no idea what the characteristics of "god" would be were there one, or where it would fit in to the universe I have encountered, or what the effect of that "god" would be upon it.

[BigBallinStalin]

85% of the world, not to mention 85.8% of your beloved America, believe in a god of some sort. Don't you think calling 85% of the world "crazy fucks" is a stupid idea?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=191872&start=180#p4221932

No they don't.


Most people of Germany at one time supported a really stupid form of government. I really don't see how "majority does herpderp" is a good argument.

[Woodruff]

So all these people like this were mentally ill? What does that say about what they were fighting for and ready to risk?
If you only understood what it is you actually debase...

I understand very well what I "actually debase". I do not debase religion as a whole itself,
but the following are things I debase:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/03/19275007-homicide-convictions-upheld-for-wisconsin-parents-who-treated-dying-daughter-with-prayer?lite

and

http://planetivy.co.uk/offbeat/52494/spanking-in-the-name-of-god/

Why is it that you didn't respond to either of those posts...perhaps you favor both of those
sorts of things?

That will almost assuredly be another question which you avoid answering.

[Woodruff]

What is a "convinced" atheist? I mean...I'm CONVINCED, but I also realize I could be wrong. So it doesn't seem to me that's a good term for a "non-agnostic atheist", which I presume it's supposed to be?

"Convinced" is a sloppy term; it probably best maps to "strong." I don't consider you a "strong" atheist, at least as it is commonly understood. (Dawkins is a strong atheist.) I would place you somewhere between weak and strong on the scale.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

I think the terms "gnostic" and "agnostic" are better ones, but you're right as far as where I fall. I am certainly an agnostic atheist.

[Woodruff]

Re: the first bit to me

Yeah sure, but in western cultures where religion is predominantly christian, it is my experience that professing atheism tends towards the assumption by others that you are predominantly a non-christian flavour of atheist (if that makes any sense at all). That assumption is wrong for some atheists, but when a survey says about "convinced atheists" I would guess that a fair amount of the people that gave this answer were convinced about the non-existence of the biblical God rather than anything that could possibly fall under any definition of God ever made. Not everyone gives all this hokum much thought or time.

well, they probably should. it's intellectually dishonest to say that god can't possibly exist just because you had some bad experiences with fundamentalist christian parents as a teenager.

I don't think that it's intellectually dishonest, necessarily (though it would be poor logic, probably). For instance, if the teenager looks at his fundamentalist parents and the things they did and it causes him to ask "how could God allow parents like these to act the way they do and still be a loving God?" and then come to the conclusion that God must not exist because he wouldn't allow it, then that's not intellectually dishonest. Poor logic, possibly...but that's a different issue.

Re: the last bit to chang
This falls under the remit of how we judge a truth value of a claim. The following are very different:
- I believe X is true. The belief that X is true entails some philosophical consequences and I should be willling to defend those consequences if I wish to put forward my positive claim about the truth of X and have it widely accepted.
- I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to say if X is true or false. There are no further consequences to this belief except that I must honestly evaluate any further evidence put forward by those who believe that X is true.

my issue was that he was so apparently bothered by people who try to tell him how his beliefs are inconsistent, illogical, or indefensible, when he does the EXACT SAME THING to others. hypocrites, man...

The difference is that when chang does it, he does it with consistency and logic. When the vast majority of religious people do it, they do not do it with consistency and logic. I suspect this comes from a general lack of real interest in their own religion (thus they don't delve too deep into really trying to understand it), but that's just a pet theory of mine. So someone telling change that he's being inconsistent or illogical WHEN HE ISN'T is not at all the same as chang telling a religious person WHO IS BEING INCONSISTENT OR ILLOGICAL that they are. There are exceptions...tzor and daddy1gringo here on this site, for instance are pretty good about trying to be consistent and logical, in my opinion. But most don't.

I seriously doubt chang would say that to someone when they're consistent and logical (to the degree that religion CAN be logical...it is faith-based, after all).

I don't think he's being a hypocrite at all, for those reasons.

[Woodruff]

85% of the world, not to mention 85.8% of your beloved America, believe in a god of some sort. Don't you think calling 85% of the world "crazy fucks" is a stupid idea?

Perhaps 85% of the world, but definitely not 85% of America, is religious.

[chang50]

85% of the world, not to mention 85.8% of your beloved America, believe in a god of some sort. Don't you think calling 85% of the world "crazy fucks" is a stupid idea?

Perhaps 85% of the world, but definitely not 85% of America, is religious.

Indeed Woody,I would like a source for this claim because the figure is obviously wrong.Not forgetting being religious and believing in god(S) are not synonomous.

[chang50]

quote="chang50"]
I wish I had a penny for every time someone,usually a theist,tries to tell me what my atheism must entail,or that it is a religion,or even a worldview.It's almost as if they cannot grasp that individuals can take a position on a single issue without massive societal support and reinforcement.Confused hits the nail squarely on the head.[/quote]

i wish i had a penny for every time someone, usually an atheist, tries to tell me what all my contradictory christian beliefs must logically entail, or that it's a bad influence on society, or even a poison. it's almost as if they cannot grasp that god can do amazing things that go beyond human understanding.

i just tried to show you how stupid your post was by counterexample, but if you need further clarification, then let me know.[/quote]

Some clarification would indeed be helpful.Are you now claiming to be a Christian?Or were you perhaps speaking on behalf of what you imagine some Christians might feel?I merely ask because I was only speaking for myself,if you were not then your counter example obviously fails as a comparison.If I remember correctly you have claimed to be agnostic in the past,but perhaps with some sympathy for Christianity?I will happily debate you all day every day if you describe exactly what your position is.Mine is agnostic or weak atheism,simple as that but if you require further clarification please ask.

[Haggis_McMutton]

i never said that the decline of homicide was due to religion. i said that a decline in religion (which has not happened to any meaningful extent) would lead to an increase in homicide.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2012/0815/Atheism-on-the-rise-around-the-globe

Atheism is on the rise in the United States and elsewhere while religiosity is declining, according to a new worldwide poll. “The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism,” conducted by WIN-Gallup International headquartered in Switzerland, found that the number of Americans who say they are “religious” dropped from 73 percent in 2005 – when the poll was last conducted – to 60 percent. Those who said they were “convinced” atheists rose from 1 to 5 percent. And 33 percent of the people polled said that they don’t consider themselves as a “religious person."

this is unsurprising. i guess we will have to wait and see the results of this new trend, then

Wait, you first claim that no decline in religiousity has occurred and then you find a 13% decline in 7 years unsurprising ? wat?

How high do you think religiosity was 100 years ago? If anything I could claim the increase in atheism has been coupled with a decrease in violence. I wouldn't actually claim that, since there's obviously 1500 other changes that have occurred in the last 100 years, but afaics the burden of proof on the whole "atheism = bad for society" thing is firmly in your court.

What is a "convinced" atheist? I mean...I'm CONVINCED, but I also realize I could be wrong. So it doesn't seem to me that's a good term for a "non-agnostic atheist", which I presume it's supposed to be?

Yeah, it's an unclear term. I guess asking people if they were a gnostic or agnostic atheist would have required a 5 minute explanation about what that means.

my issue was that he was so apparently bothered by people who try to tell him how his beliefs are inconsistent, illogical, or indefensible, when he does the EXACT SAME THING to others. hypocrites, man...

Uh you actually read the guy's post?

I wish I had a penny for every time someone,usually a theist,tries to tell me what my atheism must entail,or that it is a religion,or even a worldview.It's almost as if they cannot grasp that individuals can take a position on a single issue without massive societal support and reinforcement.Confused hits the nail squarely on the head.

He's complaining about people lumping in 100 other beliefs together with atheism. He's not complaining about any of the stuff you're talking about.

So all these people like this were mentally ill? What does that say about what they were fighting for and ready to risk?

Did I miss something? Who's saying religious people are mentally ill?

(Dawkins is a strong atheist.)

Nope.

Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale.[6]

None of the proeminent atheists make the theists mistake of claiming they are certain about the nonexistance of god. Not Dawkins, not Hitchens, none. People just like claiming they do because it lends some credence to the bullshit about how "they are just like the fundamentalist theists".

[john9blue]

Not exactly though I see where you're coming from -
All christians start from the same basic premise and the same sourcebooks. Of course they don't all agree with each other, but it is possible to point out things that, if they reject them, they're not being consistent.
Atheists don't have a basic reference work to test their atheism against.

For example, I would say (and have said before) that my basic position can be stated thusly: the universe appears to me not to need a god or gods to explain why it's the way it is. I see no reason to posit "god". I have no idea what the characteristics of "god" would be were there one, or where it would fit in to the universe I have encountered, or what the effect of that "god" would be upon it.

you can attack someone's beliefs regardless of their source material. just because there is no holy book of atheism (even though a lot of modern atheist arguments spread like memes and could probably be codified) doesn't mean that they are "purely logical".

The difference is that when chang does it, he does it with consistency and logic. When the vast majority of religious people do it, they do not do it with consistency and logic. I suspect this comes from a general lack of real interest in their own religion (thus they don't delve too deep into really trying to understand it), but that's just a pet theory of mine. So someone telling change that he's being inconsistent or illogical WHEN HE ISN'T is not at all the same as chang telling a religious person WHO IS BEING INCONSISTENT OR ILLOGICAL that they are. There are exceptions...tzor and daddy1gringo here on this site, for instance are pretty good about trying to be consistent and logical, in my opinion. But most don't.

I seriously doubt chang would say that to someone when they're consistent and logical (to the degree that religion CAN be logical...it is faith-based, after all).

I don't think he's being a hypocrite at all, for those reasons.

from my point of view, and from the point of view of most non-atheists, chang and other atheists are not being logical or consistent.

also, who are some theists on this site that you believe are not logical/consistent, and how do they differ from tzor and d1g? it seems to me that most christians on this site are fairly similar, but some of them are willing to be vocal about their controversial beliefs (like creationism). that doesn't mean they have different logic (or lack thereof) for their beliefs.

Some clarification would indeed be helpful.Are you now claiming to be a Christian?Or were you perhaps speaking on behalf of what you imagine some Christians might feel?I merely ask because I was only speaking for myself,if you were not then your counter example obviously fails as a comparison.If I remember correctly you have claimed to be agnostic in the past,but perhaps with some sympathy for Christianity?I will happily debate you all day every day if you describe exactly what your position is.Mine is agnostic or weak atheism,simple as that but if you require further clarification please ask.

i took issue with your post because you seem to think that atheism should be above criticism ("why are all these theists telling me what my beliefs entail? they must be stupid"). how are you ever going to keep learning if you think that your current opinions are above criticism? it stagnates actual discussion because everything anyone says to refute your point can be dismissed by implying that they aren't "qualified" or "smart" enough. what you're doing is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of the scientific method.

Wait, you first claim that no decline in religiousity has occurred and then you find a 13% decline in 7 years unsurprising ? wat?

How high do you think religiosity was 100 years ago? If anything I could claim the increase in atheism has been coupled with a decrease in violence. I wouldn't actually claim that, since there's obviously 1500 other changes that have occurred in the last 100 years, but afaics the burden of proof on the whole "atheism = bad for society" thing is firmly in your court.

i'm not surprised that theism is on the decline. that's partly why i don't spend much time criticizing young earth creationists... their views are on their way out, and we all know it. however, if religious influence on our society eventually becomes negligible and we still manage to stay civilized, then i will be wrong and pleasantly surprised.

(Dawkins is a strong atheist.)

Nope.

Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale.[6]

None of the proeminent atheists make the theists mistake of claiming they are certain about the nonexistance of god. Not Dawkins, not Hitchens, none. People just like claiming they do because it lends some credence to the bullshit about how "they are just like the fundamentalist theists".

gnosticism/agnosticism is a matter of degree (unlike theism/atheism, which is binary and mutually exclusive). i can call anyone who's not completely agnostic on the god question a "gnostic theist/atheist" if i use a sufficiently strict definition of agnostic. there is no "cutoff point". "claiming to know" is not a cutoff point because we as humans can never know anything with 100% certainty. all we can do is consider evidence for different positions, and change the likelihood of those positions in our mind accordingly.

also, christians are not certain about god's existence. part of christian doctrine is that faith without seeing is necessary for salvation. sure, there's christians who are 99% gnostic, but like i said earlier, that makes them no different from atheists of the same conviction.

dawkins has said before that he's 99% sure of his atheism. if that's not gnostic, than what is? if you set the bar at 100%, and view gnostic/agnostic as binary, then you have to admit that almost all christians qualify as agnostics since many of them experience moments of doubt in their faith.

see? that was less than 5 minutes.

[jonesthecurl]

Not exactly though I see where you're coming from -
All christians start from the same basic premise and the same sourcebooks. Of course they don't all agree with each other, but it is possible to point out things that, if they reject them, they're not being consistent.
Atheists don't have a basic reference work to test their atheism against.

For example, I would say (and have said before) that my basic position can be stated thusly: the universe appears to me not to need a god or gods to explain why it's the way it is. I see no reason to posit "god". I have no idea what the characteristics of "god" would be were there one, or where it would fit in to the universe I have encountered, or what the effect of that "god" would be upon it.

you can attack someone's beliefs regardless of their source material. just because there is no holy book of atheism (even though a lot of modern atheist arguments spread like memes and could probably be codified) doesn't mean that they are "purely logical".

Did I or anyone else imply or state that all atheists are purely logical?
Feel free to attack any atheists statements and opinions, but don't assume they're all the same simply because they're athiests.
All Christians are not the same either, but it is not unfair to go to the Bible, and ask whether and/or why a professed Christian believes a particular passage, or to use the Bible to question a Christian's stated opinions. To paraphrase, "even an atheist can quote scripture".
My point is that there's no atheist "creed" - but we are often told that, for instance,

When it comes to athiesm, anything goes. Duhhhhhh.
Any guilt regarding killing animals by an athiest is contradictory to their belief system.

[chang50]

Some clarification would indeed be helpful.Are you now claiming to be a Christian?Or were you perhaps speaking on behalf of what you imagine some Christians might feel?I merely ask because I was only speaking for myself,if you were not then your counter example obviously fails as a comparison.If I remember correctly you have claimed to be agnostic in the past,but perhaps with some sympathy for Christianity?I will happily debate you all day every day if you describe exactly what your position is.Mine is agnostic or weak atheism,simple as that but if you require further clarification please ask.

i took issue with your post because you seem to think that atheism should be above criticism ("why are all these theists telling me what my beliefs entail? they must be stupid"). how are you ever going to keep learning if you think that your current opinions are above criticism? it stagnates actual discussion because everything anyone says to refute your point can be dismissed by implying that they aren't "qualified" or "smart" enough. what you're doing is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of the scientific method.

John you invited me to ask for clarification,I have,and you have not provided any.For an intellectually honest discussion both parties should put their cards on the table as regards their beliefs.Mine are well known,do you intend to continue dodging here?
For the record I don't believe any ideas are above criticism or automatically deserve respect,including mine.I have learnt plenty from theists and expect to in the future.But I will not give their religious views any greater respect than their views on anything else.

[Woodruff]

The difference is that when chang does it, he does it with consistency and logic. When the vast majority of religious people do it, they do not do it with consistency and logic. I suspect this comes from a general lack of real interest in their own religion (thus they don't delve too deep into really trying to understand it), but that's just a pet theory of mine. So someone telling change that he's being inconsistent or illogical WHEN HE ISN'T is not at all the same as chang telling a religious person WHO IS BEING INCONSISTENT OR ILLOGICAL that they are. There are exceptions...tzor and daddy1gringo here on this site, for instance are pretty good about trying to be consistent and logical, in my opinion. But most don't.
I seriously doubt chang would say that to someone when they're consistent and logical (to the degree that religion CAN be logical...it is faith-based, after all).
I don't think he's being a hypocrite at all, for those reasons.

from my point of view, and from the point of view of most non-atheists, chang and other atheists are not being logical or consistent.

You're going to have to provide some evidence for a statement like that. I'm sure you have loads of evidence where change has been illogical and inconsistent, I'm sure. So let's see it.

also, who are some theists on this site that you believe are not logical/consistent, and how do they differ from tzor and d1g?

Oh geez, have you not read anything by Viceroy or universalchiro? I'm happy to point you to their posts if you haven't seen them.

it seems to me that most christians on this site are fairly similar, but some of them are willing to be vocal about their controversial beliefs (like creationism). that doesn't mean they have different logic (or lack thereof) for their beliefs.

"Different logic"? What does that even mean?

See, the thing is...religion has nothing to do with logic. It is a matter of FAITH. Faith is by definition not particularly logical. That isn't to say that a logical person can't be religious...I'm not at all suggesting that. But the act of BELIEVING IN FAITH is not a logical one.

gnosticism/agnosticism is a matter of degree (unlike theism/atheism, which is binary and mutually exclusive).

Yes and no. Gnosticism is an absolute, and is mutually exclusive of agnosticism. There are certainly degrees of agnosticism though, I would agree with that. So you're sort of half right.

i can call anyone who's not completely agnostic on the god question a "gnostic theist/atheist" if i use a sufficiently strict definition of agnostic.

"Completely agnostic"? What does that even mean?

there is no "cutoff point". "claiming to know" is not a cutoff point because we as humans can never know anything with 100% certainty.

You don't seem to have much of a grasp on what gnostic and agnostic mean. Gnostic actually DOES mean "with 100% certainty". That's kind of the point of the distinction.

also, christians are not certain about god's existence.

Gnostic ones, which are not rare, absolutely are certain about God's existence.

dawkins has said before that he's 99% sure of his atheism. if that's not gnostic, than what is?

Someone who is absolutely certain...which is precisely what gnosticism is.

if you set the bar at 100%, and view gnostic/agnostic as binary, then you have to admit that almost all christians qualify as agnostics since many of them experience moments of doubt in their faith.

I would say that probably 85% or so of Christians are agnostic, yes. I would likewise say a FAR GREATER percentage (on the 98% level) of atheists are agnostic. Of course, those numbers are probably bullshit because I just came up with them off the top of my head, but they are my guesstimation.

see? that was less than 5 minutes.

I guess it's a case of "you get out what you put into it".

[Haggis_McMutton]

gnosticism/agnosticism is a matter of degree (unlike theism/atheism, which is binary and mutually exclusive). i can call anyone who's not completely agnostic on the god question a "gnostic theist/atheist" if i use a sufficiently strict definition of agnostic.

there is no "cutoff point". "claiming to know" is not a cutoff point because we as humans can never know anything with 100% certainty. all we can do is consider evidence for different positions, and change the likelihood of those positions in our mind accordingly.

I know that and you know that, but jay, NS, the ayatollah Khomeini and Pat Robertson don't know that.

also, christians are not certain about god's existence. part of christian doctrine is that faith without seeing is necessary for salvation. sure, there's christians who are 99% gnostic, but like i said earlier, that makes them no different from atheists of the same conviction.

Yeah, there's also a significant group of Christians who claim they are 100% sure. And I definitely remember discussing this several times with you now. Not sure why you keep pretending it's not true.

dawkins has said before that he's 99% sure of his atheism. if that's not gnostic, than what is? if you set the bar at 100%, and view gnostic/agnostic as binary, then you have to admit that almost all christians qualify as agnostics since many of them experience moments of doubt in their faith.

When they experience the moment of doubt, then they're temporarily agnostic, yes. If after they get past that crisis they manage to convince themselves again of being "100% sure" then they become gnostics again.
It's a momentary property, it doesn't refer to what you were 20 years ago, or I'd still still have to call myself an orthodox christian.

Do you see that the distinction between the guy deluding himself that he's 100% sure his god is real and the guy who has some modicum of doubt is a big one? I see that difference as being MUCH more important than the difference between the guy who's 90% sure and the one who's 65% sure.
It's the difference between being convinced you are in the right and between having the modesty to admit you might be wrong. When one's immortal and real life is in the balance (as say, when one might be asked to do a suicide attack), the difference between 100% and 99% sure is massive. Would you take a 1% chance of killing yourself for no benefit?

[tzor]

For example, I would say (and have said before) that my basic position can be stated thusly: the universe appears to me not to need a god or gods to explain why it's the way it is.

I have to admit, I'm rather "agnostic" about the whole idea myself, especially after hearing that the Hawking model might no longer be in favor, that I really have no idea how the universe self justifies itself. Then again, my religious beliefs are not predicated upon the creation of a universe that can only be explained by the creator.

Sometimes I feel like we are eight grade students talking about quantum mechanics. I mean, how can you know what the universe needs or does not need if you don't understand the supersymetric model of elemental particles like the back of your hand? Is an old man sitting behind the curtain next to the Great and Powerful Oz? How would I know, I haven't even entered the city gates!

[tzor]

"Completely agnostic"? What does that even mean?

I don't know ...

Wait, that's "Absolutely Agnostic."

Completely Agnostic means that I absolutely and positively know that I don't know.

So I do know something; that i don't know, so it's not absolute.

[tzor]

(Dawkins is a strong atheist.)

Nope.

True, if you use Dawkings own seven point scale he falls between strong and weak. But the general scale is weak and strong with no "de facto" in between.

Positive and negative atheism are distinct from the philosopher George H. Smith's less-well-known categories of implicit and explicit atheism, also relating to whether an individual holds a specific view that gods do not exist. "Positive explicit" atheists assert that it is false that any deities exist. "Negative explicit" atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not assert it is true that no deity exists. Those who do not believe any deities exist, but do not assert such non-belief, are included among implicit atheists. Among "implicit" atheists are thus sometimes included the following: children and adults who have never heard of deities; people who have heard of deities but have never given the idea any considerable thought; and those agnostics who suspend belief about deities, but do not reject such belief. All implicit atheists are included in the negative/weak categorization.

[PLAYER57832]

For example, I would say (and have said before) that my basic position can be stated thusly: the universe appears to me not to need a god or gods to explain why it's the way it is. I see no reason to posit "god". I have no idea what the characteristics of "god" would be were there one, or where it would fit in to the universe I have encountered, or what the effect of that "god" would be upon it.

Here is a question, what leads you to believe that the world operates logically? Why would logic be superior to non-logic when it comes to things like biology, behavior, etc.

Seems to me that most of that falls well outside the realms of "logic". So why would logic be the best tool to explain it all?

[crispybits]

For example, I would say (and have said before) that my basic position can be stated thusly: the universe appears to me not to need a god or gods to explain why it's the way it is. I see no reason to posit "god". I have no idea what the characteristics of "god" would be were there one, or where it would fit in to the universe I have encountered, or what the effect of that "god" would be upon it.

Here is a question, what leads you to believe that the world operates logically? Why would logic be superior to non-logic when it comes to things like biology, behavior, etc.

Seems to me that most of that falls well outside the realms of "logic". So why would logic be the best tool to explain it all?

Scientific rules about the universe such that we have so far discovered seem to be all mathematical. They may be definite or probabilistic, but they are all expressed in terms of maths.

Logic is an extension of mathematical principles onto language.

Therefore the relationship between logic and the underlying laws of nature would seem to not be a completely wild and out-there hypothesis.

It's not a question of it being superior or inferior, it's just a brute fact.

[jonesthecurl]

Without logic, it is impossible to back up any opinion and we might as well forget the scientific method - the best way we have found to question how things work, refined by further questioning and testing. Without logic, we have nothing but magic, "it is written", and appeal to authority.

[BigBallinStalin]

Heed my words and listen to me thump my chest. <thumps chest>

You are ALL wrong!

[jonesthecurl]

You could be right.
Then again, if you are right, and I'm wrong about how you could be right, you're wrong. About me being wrong.