Well, leaving aside that atheism is not a religion - so were I am atheist, I am not quite sure how I would answer that - religion, properly understood, is not without its logical and indeed scientific foundations. It being the argument of the Catholic Church that faith and reason are ultimately compatible and that if man's reason were perfect, it would confirm faith.
As G. K. Chesterton wrote, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
The paradox is that the atheist is as extreme in his way as is the religious fanatic. Because the atheist sees evil in the world, he jumps to the conclusion that there must therefore be no God.
This presents two problems. First, if there is nothing but the impersonal forces of nature and the laws of physics, then there is no free will. Every thought, every action is predetermined by the intermix of molecular and physical reactions. Nothing can be other than what it is.
The problem then becomes that your belief that God does not exist is then also a simple biochemical molecular reaction. You came to the only conclusion that your physiological structure predetermined you would.
However, if that is true, then your conclusion is no more valid than the opposite conclusion. It was simply the luck of the draw of your brain's electro-chemical reactions and you end up in an intellectual hall of mirrors.
In that connection, atheism tends to premised on a rejection of the idea of God in the absence of proof of His benevolence. This leaves the atheist effectively rejecting only one vision of God - namely the Judeo-Christian version. In truth, there are other conceptions of God. (For example, the ancient Greeks believed that the gods were arbitrary and capricious.)
The second point is that if everything in the universe must have a beginning, then logically something must stand outside the universe to start the universe itself. Chesterton's point stands and is a reflection of Aquinas' view of God as the first cause of all things.
The funny part is that the atheist argues that the universe is more complex than religion. Yet their own explanation is, itself, an oversimplification. Order does not spontaneously come from chaos without something outside itself to impose order. Similarly, if all things existing must start, then something must exist outside of it to start it.
Yet the atheist's problem remains. That the order of existence came from chaos absent something to give it order. It just happened - with the caveat that we don't know how - but it happened within existence because existence is all there is.
That is a presumption - and a problem - for atheism.
Most Helpful Opinions
Logical, Yes. Absolutely certain to be true, I can't say yes.. I believe it is, but it's faith based..
Being truly dispassionate and looking at it. It's impossible to KNOW one way or the other. As far as Theories I find religious ones more believable if you don't get hung up on the "how".
Even if you prescribe to the big bang theory there's nothing to suggest that an omnipotent power didn't cause an eruption of energy through the universe in the process of his creating it.
To me it's odd to look at how everything is made up of the same building blocks in an ever moving and ever changing universe, while emphatically saying it just came into existence with no precursor. When every phenomenon in our universe has and we seek to find that origin in thousands of theories.
Religion in my opinion is simply a natural outgrowth of that seeking of truth. The how the why. We're always looking for evidence for something.
The most scientific way to "prove" anything is really seeking to honestly disprove it. If you can't then that lends more credence to that theory at this point in time with current knowledge.
Just like every theory. Saying a God created it all is a functional story/theory that does not currently have credible proof to show it's not the case. Whether it's a particular religions God is another story.
The beliefs a religious person has are illogical, considering that people believe religions based on faith. Faith is not logical from an objective perspective. My family follows Hinduism, and my mom has the utmost faith in God, but I'm the polar opposite of her. I'm not a believer. All religions are human made. I, once read a poem where the poet requests to treat humans with respect, if we treat others with respect, we'll get it back. Just be a decent human being and you will be peaceful. Why did people form religions? I'm guessing it was to make people follow certain rules and regulations that would prevent them from hurting another person intentionally. Why do you need religion to be a decent human being? I never understood why people have religious faiths, and equate religion to God. But hey, to each their own. As long as they make their own informed decisions and don't blame everything on God, and follow everything blind, everything's cool
I think so. I'm not the best catholic, I do many many things that are not okay with catholic teachings.
Sometimes, I have a hard time with it, understanding it, accepting it because it would mean changing my ways, lifestyle, it would require a lot self-control and self-imposed restrictions that I don't want to do. Plus, it kinda bums me out that I'm not a better person, through that lens. That lens is a lot more demanding than other spiritual/religious beliefs I've looked into.
In spite all that, it does make sense. It speaks a lot more of the importance of self-sacrifice, in almost every aspect of life. And I see that it is true. For your own sake, that of others, your work, your responsibilities, your self-improvement, you need to sacrifice a lot of yourself. I see a parallel with Stoicism (the practical, hands on philosophy).
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
31Opinion
I'll be as concise as possible with my fundamental thought process: My faith in Christ and God the Father is deeply logical. Ever since I was a child I did not understand the logic in the assumption that nothing has ever been eternal, like a personal God, and that at some unspecified point without reason or agency, nothing exploded into everything. That is what I'd certainly call nonsense. We look at planes and are able to deduce intelligent design. A book neither does drop down fully written and cohesive of its own accord, and a car hasn't just exploded into being. Yet when we look at the majestic nature all around us, everything co-existing and co-depending with each other in tandem, our ecosystems, fauna and flora all expertly and intricately woven down to the last molecule to function, we suddenly refuse to think intelligent design is behind it. Accidents do not engender harmony. As simple as that.
Why specifically Jesus Christ? I can witness to the countless prayers that have been answered, supernatural provision from God, how He's delivered me from dangers. But a logically based argument is that in no other religion to ever have existed now or before, has the supreme divinity sacrificed Himself to save His creations because He loves them. There is only one story like that, one only, and that is the story of Jesus Christ. That itself is witness to there being something different with Christianity.
Neither can we explain where our shared sense of morality comes from, if not from a moral-giver. A contemporary argument popular among evolutionists is that natural law has developed morality, whatever has been perceived as "naturally" warranting of a reaction like reacting poorly to murder has developed our sense of right and wrong. But that fails to explain where that reaction comes from. If all standards of right and wrong have developed from opinion, then there is no right and wrong, only opinions. Meaning that Hitler had an opinion, America has an opinion, Russia has an opinion. But nothing is really right or wrong. Those who argue from any premise that something is objectively moral, must acknowledge a higher power that has decreed it is moral. Else they are reasoning from a hypocritical standpoint.There is no reason without a reason. Reason implies purpose, purpose implies design, design implies designer, and designer implies reason.
Logically all religions (beliefs) cannot be right. There are fundamental rules of nature and existence and the truth can only line up with them. A religion is a system of shared beliefs, in that notion atheism is a religion though very disorganized outside of a college campuses. Though true atheism does not exist in practice as many of its claimants believe evolution which deifies nature and time. Logically atheism runs into a problem. A true atheist believes in nothing, but when pressed they claim to not believe in god or rather believe believe God. Atheism requires active disbelief of God, because ignoring reality is a conscious process. You are only left with two possibilities with religion one religion is right or none are right. Bringing back the definition of religion being a system of shared beliefs, then the possibility that none are right would suggest no belief is right. Understanding the systematic nature would make it seemingly a third possibility that no system has it right, but that falls under the assumption no religion is right. The possibility of one religion being right leads us to another philosophical quandary how do we determine right or wrong. Without a clear guideline through moral framework or systematic verification one cannot answer that question. For the scientific observable and replicable results. Ultimately one must accept absolute authority to accept absolute truth. The Bible gives a moral framework and makes systematic statements about reality and human nature. Christianity is verifiable in the life of the believer and to the observer. Christianity sets itself apart from other belief systems in that it describes what God did for humanity. In all other belief systems one is instructed on what humanity must do for god (s). So in that sense Christianity is the antithesis to all world religions. Christianity is also uniformly persecuted against by all other belief systems. So you are left with a question is Christianity right? The Bible gives verifiable facts from names, dates, locations, and human nature. Ultimately with any belief or system you can either accept of deny, that is based on personal conviction. May you experience God's conviction.
Romans 1: 18 - 20
18, The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20, For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.Atheism is not a belief. It is the default position in case of lack of belief. As such, it is not logical in nature.
A good example I use to think about this is: "Wildfires in the amazon forest are usually started by dragons breathing fire."
Is it logical to believe this? No. Your default position should be "I am not aware of the existence of dragons, and neither a link between them and wildfires. I am open to seeing evidence, until then, I do not believe this is the case."
There is really not much more to it than that. The number of people who believe in a certain thing does not have influence on this. In case of dragons in the amazon, the number is likely 0. In case of a monotheistic all knowing god, it may be many millions. In both cases, you do not need to think logically to dismiss them. You can point out the lack of evidence and retreat to the default position.
Once people start to put forward their positive claims about all sorts of things, ridiculous or not, then logic is required to dismiss them.
So atheism is neither logical, nor a belief, my conclusion that the evidence in favor of actual belief systems does not hold water is the result of a logical process.Well, atheism isn't a religion, nor is it a belief.
But my rejection of theist claims is logical, sure. They haven't met their burden of proof for an extraordinary claim, so I don't believe it. The same way any given theist reading this doesn't accept the claims of other religions.I belive that question comes second
The first question is there a God?
Always coming to your question
No coz I belive there is no God and when there is no God all the teaching and all automatically becomes teaching of men and then men are selfish
Very selfish
Very Very selfishI wouldn't say that it's really that "logical". I'm a christian, and I think that some things in the bible don't really make sense. My favourite example is sexuality:
A lot of christians say that homosexuality is a sin. But god is love, god is acceptance. So why would he not allow two people of the same gender to love eachother?
I will keep believing in god and in heaven, always. I just think that christianity itself, the bible, the church and all those things make up quite a few things that just aren't right or don't make sense. I believe in god, I just don't think that "this" is the way he intended christianity to be like.hahah I suppose everyone might think this, but my belief is really the only logical one: to admit you don't actually know, and you can't know.
Most religions (including atheism) are based on presuming to know the unknowable. Accepting that the unknowable is, in fact, unknowable, is the closest I believe anyone can come to "truth".You're confused.
A belief can only be true to the person who holds it - (else they wouldn't hold it as a belief). Also, logic plays a part in everything, but not everything is or can be logical as logic is narrow and easily flawed and paradoxed.
For example, as per the Zeno paradox, logically motion is not possible and nothing moves. But we know this is not true.
Hence trying to square the circle with belief and logic is a waste of time.Atheism isn't a religion, it's the absense of religion.
I don't "believe" no gods exist, I know they don't.
I refute the entire idea that the creation/begining of the universe, and omnipotence, are even possible, because logically speaking, they aren't, and I see no point in calling something a god if its not omnipotent and didn't create the universe.
Logic dictates that both infinity, and opposites exist, so a god can't exist.No religious belief is logical and true. Religious beliefs are based upon emotions, an inability to accept the finality of death, and the incredibly conceited belief that we actually matter in this universe.
- u
If you’re going to discuss religion, why not have the testicular fortitude to ask with your username instead of going anonymous? If you feel that passionate about it, own it.
Atheism is not a religion. That would be like saying, a person who knows Unicorns don't exist is part of religion for thinking that.
It's only the ones who believe in Unicorns existing without proof that are religious.I'm not sure of anything anymore. I do see things for myself and what I see tells me a lot about the world. My life is small so the experience and exposure will be as well. The universe is huge and I am a dust particle in it. I know what I feel in my heart is true. I hope for an afterlife that I can spend with the people I love. But I really don't know anymore.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism has no creeds, rituals, holy book, absolute moral code, origin myth, sacred spaces or shrines. It has no sin, divine judgement, forbidden words, prayer, worship, prophecy, group privileges, or anointed 'holy' leaders. Atheists don't believe in a transcendent world or supernatural afterlife.
Will I don't believe in religions at all... My belief is 'we work hard we earn'
and I think everyone can see that it has logic...
And then there is Karma, in which I believe 'whatever you give you get'
Which definitely has a logic...Logical no True? I'll let you know in the afterlife 😂
Logical, probably not. I don't think any religion can be viewed for the most part as logical, however true? Well as far as I'm concerned it's my truth and in the end that's all that matters for me
Atheism isn't a religion, as it doesn't have a strict set of beliefs or doctrine. Some atheists believe there is no god which is just as faith based as any religion. Some do not have a belief in any God (which is different than believing there is no God), which tends to be due to a perceived lack of logical or empirical evidence for a God.
Religion is based on belief and faith in something that can't be proven or tested, so it can't be logical.Atheism isn't a religion, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.
I don’t have any religious us beliefs becausevtheres no evidence to support any of them.
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!