yea, just becasue your an athiest doesnt mean that you have to except evolution,they might have far diffrent ideals.

This is true. However, in the case of Columbine, the motivation of the shooters was "natural selection" and they specifically killed theists. While atheism doesn't imply nor require evolution, these students were atheists who believed in evolution. They clearly used evolution and atheism as justification for the killings.

christans did it to aztecs. you cant just blame them here

I thought they were killing jocks?

Believe, or lack thereof, is never logical...no matter what we try to tell ourselves.

Stating facts, without backing them up, is never helpful... no matter what we tell ourselves.

fixed.

I thought Columbine was about killing bullies who picked on em? If it was about natural selection they pretty much self defeated themselves because they were eliminated in the process too.

(thought that 2)

It was many reasons. They were most likely insane if not then simply extremely hateful and bitter, like small town Pennsylvanians. They targeted several groups, theists were one of those groups.

like small town Pennsylvanians

what?!?!

It was in Colorado. I think Columbine really was an example of how pharmaceutical drugs are being over prescribed because of their profitability and that many people on meds do not actually need them and are worse off on them.

baby did you forget to take your meds ~

I agree with 666, I don't understand your last post. What small town Pennsylvanian groups are you refering to? Do you have any way to prove your statements that the Columbine shooters were targeting certain groups like theists or Christians?

I do know they did ask one girl if she believed in god and she replied 'yes' before they shot her.

im still pissed about that PA comment..

Maybe he was referring to that comment Obama made about Pennsylvanians?

I (evidently wrongly) presupposed command of the English language:



Source

persuasion is



therefore not logical by definition.

?????? obama or not it was rude and reported just like obama

I dont understand this thread. Doesnt being atheist mean you dont believe? So, how can atheism be a belief structure?

more of a way to live i guess idk

Now we are getting into the depths of philosophy here, atheist means "without god". It says nothing about believe. In fact the believe in a non-existence of gods is a believe.

The Topic reads: Is atheism a logical belief?

right, atheism can be defined as the "believe in the non-existence of God". For some it is as much a religion as for others Christianity. Especially for those who aggressively define themselves as atheists, or aggressively try to "read" atheism into whatever statement somebody has made.

Therefore the question is not wrong from the atheism angle, it is wrong from the believe angle. No believe is logical. Only certainty is.

Ah, I see...thank you for your input

I think he might be reffering to an incident that happened in a Quaker community, where a guy stormed a one room school house and killed the teacher and a number of students a year or two ago. Just a guess though.

I guess speaking as an Athiest we could put it one of two ways?

I could say:

I believe there is no god.

or

I don't believe in god.

I use the later of the two.

still has no right

Hmmm... right, but your keyword here is believe not logic



The problem here is that you try to demonstrate with logic (i.e. philosophical/scientific reasoning) something that cannot be quantified either as positive (god exists) nor as negative (god does not exist). Therefore the logic will always be flawed by believe.

As far as believe goes...hey each to his liking...surely can't hurt (unless you plan to blow yourself up to demonstrate the truthfulness of your believe).

I just want to know how to make a logical argument supporting my position when the thing we are debating on, in its very nature, is not logical at all.

Humans can grasp logic..thats why we like it...humans can not grasp the concept of God that is why we argue about His existance...

What I'm getting at is that if you want a logical argument..you might want to find another topic besides spiritual beliefs

Ok lets try this one on.

I don't think there is a god

or I could be rude and say

There is no god. hmmm comes off badly

Don't get me wrong I think his logic about the shooting being done in the name of Athiesim is abit off.

That's it in a nutshell,it's just disbelief


fullywired

Yes, I agree. So could you explain how you've decided that the Columbine shooters were targeting theists as you've stated and please explain the Pennsylvania groups?

huh?

It's a joke. I was mocking Barack Obama.

well it was insulting

Ok. I'm going to clear up the confusion.

The Columbine shooting did target some theists, and was, in the shooters minds, natural selection.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/05/columbine.diary/
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm

As for the Pennsylvanians comment. I said the shooters were bitter and full of hate. Recently Obama said small town Pennsylvanians are bitter and cling to their guns. I was mocking Obama, not Pennsylvanians. It was nothing more than a jest at one of our pathetic candidates.

I'm sorry, are you related to Barack Obama? Are you his close personal friend? If not, then why are you insulted. I merely mocked a politcal candidate. There's no reason to be offended. Get over it and quit derailing the thread.

If you're going to take that stance, then you are in no position to ever insinuate that atheists are illogical. If you don't do this, this isn't directed at you.

Yes.

The Columbine shooters asked a girl if she believed in God. She said yes and they shot her. In their journals they spoke of natural selection as a reason of motivation for the killings. THe Pennsylvanian comment was mocking Barack Obama. I used the same description of the Columbine shooters as he did of small town Pennsylvanians. That's all.

There is nothing offensive in the sentence: "There is no God" as far as I can see. Not formulating it that way if that is what you feel is just a sign of insecurity (that will be $22.50 + sales tax for counseling). Anybody can feel free to disagree.

No I wasn't.


Yet Christians say Jesus is god. When everyone starts saying I believe before everything they say fine. Generally it is implied, but saying I don't believe there is a god is technically more appropriate.

That's not true at all. Logic doesn't allow for a negative to be untrue unless the positive is confirmed. They are not on equal rational standing. There's no "unknown" in that sense. There is and there isn't. The is is quantifiable and real and bears the weight of objective examination. The isn't is unfounded claims. By your logic any claim is valid. The starting place is always nonexistance unless substantiated for every field of philosophy.

Sorry, but that is your believe....

In belief any claim is valid. In logic not.

And to start with the non-existence is the Descartes's approach, Seneca's or Aristotle's approach would be from the existence:

Aristotle: To do is to be
Descartes: To be is to do
Sinatra : Dobedobedooo

ED:Embarrassing typo

Your claims would be much more credible if you knew when to use believe and belief.

Thanks for clearing that up. Your comment about the Columbine shooters targeting theists wasn't entirely accurate. They targeted "a" theist according to the information you provided. I was always under the impression that they were retalliating against the people who had belittled them.

That's an epistemological difference that arrives at the same conclusion when testing the validity of a statement or claim. Both Descartes and Aristotle (who's ideas are archaic and useless) would arrive at the same conclusion of validity given the statment, "When I drop a ball I believe it will fall upward, away from the earth." Aristotle would bludgeon the subject with actuators and potentiality but he would find the statement without merit. Niether would find validity in just any claim proposed.

The exact reasons for their killings aren't exactly known.

Back on topic. Many theists claim atheism is illogical. Those who believe this, please present your reasoning.

The reason for this thread, is to see if theist can convert an Atheist with logical proof? Right?
From what I read from the OP's opening post, a theist tried to to convert an Atheist with a logic that is going way too deep, in my opinion. That thing that theist was saying......


This seems like he's reaching! I ask, why does he suppose you have to be God, to know everything? Why can't someone or something else know everything? Why God? That could be, because the theist is familiar with God. But talking to an Atheist, you are talking to an individual who supposedly doesn't know God, to think that God would know everything? I think that logic is fallible.
Someone else can grow up and not know God, and there would know everything exist, but would be something else entirely that knows everything. How is there proof that only God can know if there is no God? Surely everyone and everything has the ability to know there is no God, or what have you?
Plus, the fallicy I see in the God can know there is no God, is how can you know you don't exist? It's like the same ole, does a falling tree make a noise in an empty forest bit.

Here's a bit of logic that I would like to use, or the kind of logic I see as logic. Why must this particular theist start asking these incredible questions, not normally asked in this way, to an Atheist? Why must he even try? The logic I see in this, is that a theist has no right in controlling the beliefs of someone else. Samething with the ATheist. A theist has no business trying to logic on a subject that deals with belief.

In fact, Atheism a logically sound belief? Part of that question sounds oxymoranic to me. What belief is logical?
And considering, that atheism is consider by many, to not be a belief, then maybe it is logical, because belief does not fall into the subject.
It's logical, as long as it's not a belief. You see what I mean?