Is religion or atheism more illogical?

"Atheists criticize religious people because they say that it is illogical to believe in something for which no perfect proof exists."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's there is no convinving evidence and the whole idea is completely illogical, so the most reasonable conclusion is that it's very, very unlikely that there's a god.

"To be an atheist on the other hand requires much more knowledge of God than to be religious."

Knowledge of God? How can you have knowledge of something that doesn't exist? If there was a god, and I would have knowledge about her, I wouldn't be an atheist.

"In order to say that God is not real, an atheist must first have a specific definition of God (unless the atheist takes the position that nothing is real).

However, you can almost never get an atheist to spell out exactly what it is that they do not believe is real."

You want me to list everything I don't believe in? That list would be literally endless.

It's not up to me to define your, or anyone else's, god. YOU have to define what you mean by "god", and then I'll let you know whether I believe in it or not.

Because otherwise you can adjust your definition everytime someone refutes your arguments.

"It is illogical to claim to be an atheist simply because you dislike the concept of God, or because you do not understand God."

I agree. That is illogical.

I'm an atheist because there's no evidence and the entire idea is completely illogical, NOT because I don't like the idea. What I like has nothing to do with it. It's about whether the idea is plausible or not.

And it's also not because I "don't understand God". What's there to understand? What is it exactly that you understand and I don't?

"To truly be an atheist requires much more study and understanding of God than it takes to believe in God."

No, it doesn't. How do you study something that doesn't exist?

"It is illogical to claim to be an atheist without knowing what you are talking about."

YOU don't know what you're talking about. It's clear you have never taken the effort to get to know the arguments against the existence of gods.

No. Atheists (in general) do not criticize religious people because they say that it is illogical to believe in something for which "no perfect proof" exists. When asking which is more illogical it is a good idea not to open up with a strawman fallacy...which is when you make up an easily attacked position for the other side to hold.

You follow your first logical fallacy with that of a double standard. There is in fact no reason at all why someone who does not believe would have to have a specific definition of "God" and a religious follower would not.

Finally of course you complain that you can "almost never get an atheist to spell out exactly what it is they do not believe is real" As if people are somehow limited to not believing in one thing when in reality people don't believe in lots and lots of things. That's the Line Drawing fallacy I think.

The choices in life can not be made logically alone!

There is a old question that shows this-

Which is better a watch that looses 1 minute a day or one that does not run.

The logical choice based on accuracy is the one that does not run because it is right at least twice a day. The illogical choice based on accuracy is the one that looses a minute a day because it is right only once every 720 days.

Now the reality is that a watch that losses a minute a day while not as accurate is at least in the ball park most of the time and that a watch can be reset as needed.

So choices based on reality and non-quantitative reasoning are more valid then choices made with logic and/or reason.

The reason I went this way is that those who depend on logic alone are only handicapping themselves and will in all reality not succeed! Right now there are small high energy photon generating units in use in cancer treatment centers. Logic and reason dictates that they "can not work", even the top secret labs for the US military declared such a unit was impossible based on available data. Even the President of the US declared it was impossible. But a small group of people decided to hell with all the data that claimed such a unit would not work and put together what might work- it did.

So from a lot of fields of research it has been found that logic and reason often lead to the wrong conclusion.

I find no credible evidence for the existence of any god.

"...an atheist must first have a specific definition of God" Do you have any idea of how many gods have been claimed? Thousands and each of them have a different definition. I do not believe that any god, as described in religious texts, exists. I have no need to define gods, religious texts that are written by man have already defined them.

"...relying on faith, which is belief in something that is unproven." Zero evidence, yet people still believe. People believe because they were taught to believe.

It is illogical to claim to be a theist simply because you like the concept of god, or because you think you understand god.

"It is illogical to claim to be an atheist without knowing what you are talking about." No, I am an atheist because I do not believe that a god exists.

Just a quick question for you then.

If you are the ones who keep trying to affirm that God exists, why is it our responsibility to define him when we do not believe in ANY deities?

I could spend all day describing all the different gods I have no belief in but why should I?

The simple fact is that there has never been any evidence, perfect or otherwise, that supports any god and so it would be highly illogical to believe in one.

Your assertion that disbelief requires more knowledge than belief is curious, as you seem to imply you only believe because you don't know your god as well as we do. But then you also follow it up by incorrectly stating that all atheists "say that God is not real", which is false.

I do not KNOW that god is not real. Then again I have more evidence for the existence of Santa and Pokemon than I do for your god and I can say pretty confidently that they are not real either.

They're not exclusive ... Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucuianism, Animism ... all atheistic religions. However if you're asking if theism or atheism is more logical, then the answer is definitely atheism.

The demonstration of this from a logical standpoint is this: Belief in that which cannot be shown to be real is without reason, and therefore illogical.

* * * * * * * * * * *

However, we can also conclude that theism is illogical by simply looking at the definition of the word, and the words in the definition.

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of VALIDITY.

Validity: the quality of being FACTUALLY sound

Fact: Something that is indisputably the case.

When citing logic, it inevitably leads back to fact. Deities are based in faith, not fact. Until deities can be verified as factual ... they do not fall under the realm of logic.

* * * * * * * * * * *

-edit-

Atheism does not make the claim, "There is no god" ... instead it says, "I do not believe in god". One is a lack of belief, and one is a claim of truth ... they are very different. Somone who says "There is no god" is called a gnostic atheist, and since they cannot back up their claim, it is a faulty claim. The same thing goes for theists. A theist says, "I believe in god" whereas a gnostic theist says, "I KNOW there is a god" ... it also is a faulty claim since they cannot back it up.

Every instance of a claim of god I have encountered was unconvincing to me, so I do not hold the belief that there is a god ... if evidence can ever be presented of a deity's existence, I will re-evaluate my stance. I am an atheist because I follow evidence to a conclusion, if there is no evidence then I do not accept the claim as truth. I am not an atheist out of wilfull disagreement.

However, for the sake of meeting your requirement, I will spell it out as you requested. I find the concept of an all knowing, all powerful, invisible, supernatural being, that created the universe, judges us, refuses to reveal itself, and leaves no evidence of its existence to be unconvincing. I simply do not see a reason to accept such a claim as truth. Throughout all of human history, we have only stories as a basis for it.

To be religious is always an exercise in faith. To believe words written on a page are the teachings of a God and to follow these teachings is the ultimate act of faith. As is believing in our own personal power (as atheists do) without any real understanding of how and why we exist. Whether they realize it or not, atheists do have faith in something, if only in themselves. We are all alike, even in our differences.

My truth is that I AM and therefore the hard to define ultimate energy many call God must exist, It is in every fiber of my being. I AM THAT I AM.. So simple to say, so hard to explain. Hope this helps.

***Atheists criticize religious people because they say that it is illogical to believe in something for which no perfect proof exists.***

Not perfect proof... ANY proof.

*** In order to say that God is not real, an atheist must first have a specific definition of God***

No, one can LOGICALLY conclude that there is no god from the PROFOUND lack of evidence that one exists.

***It is illogical to claim to be an atheist simply because you dislike the concept of God, or because you do not understand God. ***

Fortunately, that isn't what atheists claim. They simply reject religious claims that gods exist because there is no evidence that they do. That's perfectly logical. What is illogical is insisting that something is real when it is evidently untrue.

***Admit that they are relying on faith, which is belief in something that is unproven. ***

Which is illogical.

***It is illogical to claim to be an atheist without knowing what you are talking about. ***

And yet you've made half a dozen illogical, ill-considered, and absurdly false claims. Perhaps it is you who should seek more understanding. You clearly have no idea what atheism is but presume to tell others how to think.

You say in order to say God is not real, an atheist must first have a specific definition of God. I think the point you're missing is that the religious will GIVE you a definition of God, like, for example, as this god is described in the Bible. So much so that if you capitalize the word, it's not just any god, it's THE God, i.e., Jaweh, Jehovah, or even Jesus. (Is he the son of God or is he God incarnate or are we gonna get bogged down in our own moronic semantics?) I do know what I'm talking about when I say that any definition of any god proffered to date is ridiculous. So far, humankind had been incredibly unimaginative and exceedingly lame in its ideas about gods, any gods. Even the idea or word "god" is something drug up from the bowels of human minds afraid of eternal oblivion.

Theists believe a god exists.

Atheists disbelieve that a god exists.

There is no evidence of gods existing.

Therefore disbelief is the most logical position at this time. If any evidence of gods is found then belief will be more logical.

There are many definitions of gods because there are many gods who have been worshipped. I do not believe in any supernatural beings because there is no evidence of anything supernatural . This includes gods but it also includes mermaids and werewolves and things like this.