Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
So, knowing this, I'm kinda' wondering how one argument can be considered more 'logical' than the other.
|
There is nothing inherently irrational about theist ideas- they directly follow from the assumptions on which they are based. This is the very definition of rational. As far as logic goes- anyone who has taken a logic class, or has read much about the subject could tell you that the subject of a logical statement is practically irrelevant in the context of whether it is "logical" or not. All sentences are logical statements. The classic example would be something like, "If it rains tomorrow, the sky is purple." This statement is a logical statement, or two if you felt like breaking it up. If you wanted to evaluate it as such you could see that under specific circumstances(when it isn't raining) it is actually true.
The words "logic" and "rational" mean different things in the context of a discussion on atheism than they do in the everyday. The presumption in their use is that the theist isn't logical or rational or reasonable because they haven't arrived at the same conclusions about the nature of the universe as has the atheist. It actually has less to do with logic or rationality or reason and more to do with the differing assumptions each group has made about the nature of the beast.