Bam! That’s logic fo’ ya!

After battling with Atheists for what seems like months, I took my questions to the man. That is Dr. Glenn Joy. I don’t expect you to accept my adoration for him as credence but I think it is fair to note that, not only is he the best Logic instructor I ever had, he has been a Professor of Philosophy since 1965. His specialty is Logic but we had a heck of a time together studying Religion Vs. Science. (Best class ever!) He is my Annie Sullivan. I owe him a great deal and I am eternally grateful for his continued support on my journey. Dr. Joy is a joy, that is for sure.

At any rate, this is for my atheist friends. The irony about Atheism is that there are a variance of ways that people define it. Some say it is a disbelief, some say it is a lack of belief, others say they claim there is no god, while again others aver that they never make claims. Who is right?? Aye dios mio! Pun intended. Its wrecked out there. In the highest form of irony, each Atheist with each competitive view asserts their definition is the ULTIMATE one. Adorable!

Ok, shall we? The three following issues are what come up most often:

Some atheists contend that atheism is a “lack of belief” (which is harmless enough I suppose), but then make the broad leap to universality and so “deduce” that anyone who lacks a belief in god is an atheist. This is not a valid argument.

Secondly, some atheists contend that atheism is not a choice. Which is ironic because they usually do so after telling you about all the evidence they’ve weighed (weighing in itself is a choice, hello), yet still somehow attempt to conclude that despite having researched and pondered that no choice was made to OFFICIALLY call oneself a distinction that was not innate. Innerestin’.

And thirdly, and the only point I have ever tried to make, yet Atheists get distracted by argumentation, is that I just find it truly ironic that Atheists hate the idea of god but have molded their entire lives around disputing what they consider a myth. This is the argument for Conditional Dependence. They are verily dependent upon the concept (not existence, just the concept) of god in their very own Self Definitive Terminology. No one else finds that absurd? To define yourself, make a twitter account, FB, tumblr, just to defeat what you think is a myth? Is it that you can’t find any better way to help the world than arguing for your disbeliefs?
What a waste. Religion is a symptom of the problem. The problem is a failure in logic, until we address that, Religion is just a distraction and Atheism is part and parcel of that distraction.

And yet in another case of irony; Atheists use the same logical structuring in their arguments as Theists. The rub is that Atheists have attempted to hijack Logic and make it mean what ever they want it to. I feel sure it is because they have never attempted to reach outside their own consciousness and that signals to me a resignation of critical thinking. But don’t take my word for it. Here are 3 questions I posed to Dr. J. The same questions I have been posing to atheists for months. If any one atheist can dispute this, I will praise your name across the interwebs.

Another for your brain
9:27 AM (3 hours ago)

to Glenn
Ok. This one is just for me.
Is it (can it be) logically supported to say:

It is possible for a belief to exist without a countering disbelief to exist yet impossible for a disbelief to exist without an initial belief?

And for giggles, what is your definition of Atheism.

Bonus: Do you think a disbelief and a lack of belief are the same?

Sorry, but I am needing some logic or my brain is going to collapse.

Hope you’re well. At your leisure, naturally. Have a great day!



Glenn Joy
10:12 AM (3 hours ago)

to me
I’m giving a logic exam as I write.

People have believed in the external world even when there were no idealists.
Since it is an “ism” I think it involves the actual disbelief in god/gods. Babies aren’t atheists.
People can lack a belief in the existence of other galaxies without disbelieving their existence.

10:59 AM (2 hours ago)

to Glenn
I am most grateful. Logic, indeed is my religion! Praise Venn!



Anyone care to try?


About Janis Alanis

Thinker, BS detector, champion of Reason. Unafraid. Ticked off, and riled up. View all posts by Janis Alanis

2 responses to “Bam! That’s logic fo’ ya!

  • dieta

    The common definitions for “atheism” involve strong and weak versions. Strong = belief there are no god(s); Weak =disbelief/lack of belief in god(s). Some dictionaries stress the strong version over the weak version as a standard accepted meaning. Is this accurate? Not necessarily and this shows the bias of early publishers.

    • Janis Alanis

      Etymologically and philosophically speaking atheism may not be defined as a “lack of belief”. That is to say that when one assumes the system of atheism it can no longer be considered a lack, but a disbelief. Far too often, those arguing for this “weak” belief or dual system within the confines of the dogma of atheism, conveniently attempt to fudge this due to the philosophical implications of choice. Some atheists like to argue that lack of belief is what they have but one cannot have a “lack” of belief if it is based on a history of weighing evidence that results in a particular stance. Lack of belief may be what they feel, but it is not etymologically sound to say that is what exists in their thought process. And this dispute has more to do with a dearth of logical processing than it does publishing issues. People make words mean what ever they want.

      Now the reason this is important is because: It’s ridiculous to create the dichotomy of weak/strong Atheism. A belief that there are no gods requires the same reasoning that a disbelief in gods does, but it is here that Atheists like to use the “lack of belief” argument. Why do this? Well, they (at least on some level) understand the irony of “being” and “atheist” and it’s conditional dependence (along with theism) in choosing to focus on the CONCEPT of god (not the existence mind you) and they don’t like that. So they attempt to portray Atheism as an a priori state (which means it exists outside of man and is a static notion–that they somehow magically realized after researching their way to this philosophy) and that we are essentially atheists at birth. Tell me how do you HAVE a lack? Either you lack or you have. No one can have a lack. You believe or you disbelieve when you call yourself an atheist. There is no middle ground when we define ourselves.
      This argument fails for at least two reasons: Many people are not nor do they, nor will they ever consider themselves atheists or theists. And for atheists to assume that an argument they make to assist themselves should create a universal definition of something that only applies to themselves, is preposterous. And secondly, where do they suppose this magic distinction/concept came from? If you don’t believe in god or something greater than yourselves (which most atheists don’t) how can you have concepts that exist outside the realm of man? Atheistically, its impossible.
      The short of it is this whole Negative/Positive Atheism is a waste of time. Nothing makes more sense after it splinters. It is just a weak attempt to make atheism something its not because atheists like to try to sneak in the back door what they can’t fit through the front. (It’s an abuse and an affront to logical reasoning either way.)
      Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: