Why do atheists like to use the word "logic" so much, when they never use it?

There is nothing logical about denying possibilities that have not yet been disproven.





There is nothing logical about ASSUMING anything in general, but especially those things that contemplate the complex unsolved mysteries of our lives.





Thus, there is no logic apparent in the statement, "There is no God."





There is no logic in assuming that science is a flawless, unshakable foundation from which all truth springs, and that the ego-centric atheist scientists who shamelessly promote themselves could never be wrong.





There is nothing logical about allowing SELF-APPOINTED experts to supply you with your ADOPTED belief system, blindly accepting their claims as facts without actually checking them out for yourself.





Atheism? Logical? Open-minded? Free thinkers? Not even close.





If atheists were logical thinkers, they would realize that everything they know could be wrong, and they would admit as much. Instead they are willing slaves to the ego, and naively believe they are superior to those who ACTUALLY retain open-mindedness. True open-mindedness, that is. Not the closed-minded lifestyle of atheism that simply masquerades as open-mindedness...|||Scientific Default|||Most atheists know science is not flawless, but that is presented in order to be tested. This is well known, you must be ignoring it. There is pretty convincing evidence against the need for a creator, when there is no evidence supporting it.


Nothing is absolute, atheists just follow where the facts lie, this is where truth is. Hiding behind a book or "faith" will not change that.





Your logic is flawed, "It has not been dis-proven, therefore it can be." This is not so, there would still be a need for evidence supporting this claim while there is none. Do not say the bible, qu'ran, torah or any other book, they are just books written by men.|||There's no logic in expecting people to disprove a single god when there's millions. There's no open mindedness in believing in one god or a group of when there's plenty to choose from. I can accept the fact I may be wrong, I don't claim superiority and I'm not an egomaniac, can't really say the same for believers though. What with their claims of moral superiority and all..|||I agree: There's nothing logical about denying possibilities that have yet to be disproven.





That's where the agreement ends because I'll accept it when you prove it actually exists.





Honestly, I don't see what the problem is. It keeps us both honest. I don't start believing something just to shut you up, and you can't convince me without evidence for your claim.|||Your first sentence illustrates the flaw in your logic.



If you are trying to imply that, since the existence of God has not been disproved, then your error is not knowing that it is a logically impossibility to prove a negative.



In any case, it is not up to Atheists to disprove the existence of God. Since Theists have postulated that God exists, the burden of proof is on their shoulders.|||I admit there may be some divinity but it is not possible to exist how Christianity says. Anyway the Church is a grand hypocrisy, Christianity is supposed to repeat the teachings of Jesus. Jesus believed in nonviolence, "giving everything to the poor", among others. Yet you see religious wars, the pope wearing gold everything with staffs of diamonds etc. I'm a better Christian than half the people sitting next to you in Church.|||LOL LOL!! AMEN!!!!!





Don't forget evolutionists, homosexuals, mormons, muslims, and last but not least rich greedy powerlusters.





@Jim: To believe you never err is to believe you are not human but are god. They better hope they are right and can save their own souls when they die. Good luck blind sinners, I really hate to see any of you go to hell.|||Because they think that believing in unproven, untested and in some cases even debunked scientific hypotheses makes them superior and without hypocrisy. Yet at the same time they demand evidence for the existence of God.





In most instances it's really a case of low self esteem.|||There is nothing logical about believing in a possibility that has no evidence and is nothing more than a wild guess.





Particularly when said fantasy has been wrong about nearly everything science has learned about the Universe.|||I will look with an open mind at your EVIDENCE for the existence of your alleged Jewish god and the EVIDENCE for the existence of his alleged son. Show me your EVIDENCE. Isn't it logical to base a conclusion of the EVIDENCE?|||bob i love your questions. i see no proof of bigfoot either so therefore i dont believe in him. now bring in a corpse of one or a live specimen and i'm all in. bring me proof of a god i dont care which one and i'd be in. something truly tangible though, none of this holy words our holy books stuff which is all religious folks seem to have to offer.|||Wow. That's a sweeping generalization. It's no better than atheists saying all believers believe in fairytales and have the mind of a two year old. :/ I don't like it. Shows prejudice.|||yeah because the bible is filled with logic right?|||Atheism doesn't necessarily claim 'god does not exist'





Scientists have evidence. We don't just take their word. And they are not self appointed. They go through decades of study ans research.|||BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DISPROVE A NEGATIVE. God damn get it through your head. It's logical to say god doesn't exist BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROOF. There's also no logic in claiming every single god is fake except your own.|||So true open mindedness is ignoring the facts?








interesting...|||Many do, but it just looks like they don't if you spend time in R%26amp;S. Hardly anyone actually uses logic here.|||they have so much faith that their theories are right|||I, personally, and not on the behalf of any other person in the universe, see that yes, there is a possibility of god, because a god can do whatever it wants. But, there is no evidence of a god, so we can't assume there is one, either. And since man invented the concept of god, it is unlikely that there is one. And even if there isn't, this god hasn't affected me, so I can survive without worshiping him. What IS illogical, is listening to a book written many years ago by men and accepting it as true. We don't base our atheism on proof, we base it on lack of proof, on your part.|||There is everything logical about not accepting beliefs that have no evidence. There is every logic to not accepting something until it Can be prove to exits or even possible.





I do not think it possible for harry potter to really exist adn there really be wizards, is that illogical. Sure there may be a very remote tiny minuscule possibility, but its not a possibility that would be considered in reality.





So why should I consider a god to be possible, by what standards or what evidence has been presented to how its possible? I consider it a possibility once someone demonstrates that it is indeed a possibility.





Again could you prove harry potter or star trek being real are not possible would you have to accept that unicorns are a possibility?





We can using science remove somethings from consideration because these things are against all Scientific Evidence we have and go against every logical thinking process we have.





Until evidence is presented that shows supernatural forces or gods are in fact possible, we have a great deal of Evidence to go from to show its not.





WE can make sound judgements and logical decision based on the Information at hand.





Now of course Information and evidence may come in the future, but the time to consider it is when that happens.





Again to you consider fairies to eb possible?|||Logic, ha. Yes, it's true that I'm open for any possibilities. But instead of thinking there's a possibility for everything I think I'll stick to the small list of things that are pretty much logically sound and provable. For example: here's a list of all the things I'd need to keep an open mind about since they have not been totally disproven:





Unicorns


Leprachauns


Flying spaghetti monsters.


Santa


The tooth fairy


The Matrix being real


Unicorns


The Loch Ness Monster


Big Foot aka Sasquatch


A small little yellow Pikachu sitting under my feet that I just can't see.


Martians that live inside Mars so we can't see/find them


This list goes on and on.





Yes, I admit, there's a SLIGHT possibility that all those things are possible.... but I'm not going to just start worshipping them all and going crazy about believing in them just because there's a CHANCE they do exist. Logically that would be insane, I think my head would explode because I'd have to "believe" in upwards of 100,000,000 different things that could be true. From myths to ghosts to the boogie man. Like I said, I'll stick with the logical things that have at least some good evidence to support them.





There, that's your logical argument. If you want to half-believe in all those things I listed, go ahead, but that list is a very very very long list.|||first of all, others are right when they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. if the religious are the ones claiming a god exists, then the burden of proof is on them.





atheists and scientists in general do not just assume things. for one, they do have extraordinary evidence for things like evolution. and they do NOT (the majority, myself included) believe their theories are "flawless" or "unshakable". a major ideal of science is being willing to rewrite your entire idea of how the world works and your values if new evidence arises. they WANT as many minds as possible to criticize and edit their work, for the sake of gaining knowledge as a whole.





we do not "blindly" accept anything as fact.





and lastly I am an agnostic atheist who DOES in fact realize everything i believe could be wrong.|||Well, forgive my lack of logic, but let me ASSUME your argument is correct on all points. How much more guilty is the religious side of the same or functionally equivalent violations of logic?



- Accepting possibilities that have not yet been proven.



- Assuming things in general about the complex, unsolved mysteries of life.



- Assuming that faith is a flawless, unshakable foundation from which all truth springs, and that the Bible (or perhaps a religious figure) could never be wrong.



- The following of SELF-APPOINTED experts. ADOPTING a belief system. Blindly accepting claims as facts without checking them out yourself.



If atheists are guilty of being illogical, so are theists. Equivalence of irrationality doesn't prove one side right or one side wrong, but it does suggest that the religious are certainly in no position to criticize the logic of atheists.



Your statement is so ironic that I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that this was intended to be satire.|||Sequoia is a genus of redwood coniferous trees in the Sequoioideae subfamily, of the Cupressaceae family. The only extant species of the genus is the Sequoia sempervirens in the Northern California coastal forests ecoregion of Northern California and Southern Oregon in the United States. The two other genera, Sequoiadendron and Metasequoia, in the subfamily Sequoioideae are closely related to Sequoia. It includes the largest trees in the world.





Several extinct species have been named from fossils, including Sequoia affinis, Sequoia chinensis of China, Sequoia langsdorfii, Sequoia dakotensis of South Dakota (Maastrichtian), and Sequoia magnifica.





[edit] PaleontologyThe genus Sequoia first appears in the fossil record as Sequoia jeholensis, found in Jurassic deposits of South Manchuria (Ahuja and Neale 2002). By the late Cretaceous it was already established in Europe, parts of China, and western North America. Comparisons among fossils and modern organisms suggest that by this period Sequoia had already evolved a greater tracheid diameter that allowed it to reach the great heights characteristic of the modern Sequoia sempervirens (Coast redwood). Sequoia was not dominant in the tropical high northern latitudes, likely due to outcompetition by Metasequoia, a redwood whose deciduous habit gave it a significant adaptive advantage in an environment with 3 months of continuous darkness (Jagels and Equiza 2005). However there still was prolonged range overlap between Sequoia and Metasequoia which could have led to hybridization events that created the modern hexaploid Sequoia sempervirens (Ahuja and Neale 2002; Rogers 2000).|||LOL LOL!! AMEN!!!!!



Don't forget evolutionists, homosexuals, mormons, muslims, and last but not least rich greedy powerlusters.



@Jim: To believe you never err is to believe you are not human but are god. They better hope they are right and can save their own souls when they die. Good luck blind sinners, I really hate to see any of you go to hell.|||See: "Argument from inconsistent revelations."|||Atheists believe that are NEVER wrong about anything, especially about God.|||Dont forget. They also consider theories as proven tests.