This discussion may surprise some of you, people usually put logic and atheism in the same sentence, some people even claim that to be completely rational one has to be an atheist. Today I hope to show you the absurdity of Atheism, not weak atheism, but strong, militant atheism. After reading the ‘God Delusion’ I thought Dawkins had thrown religion and my beliefs into a garbage bin; I had lost my faith and became what they call a ‘skeptic’.  However, instead of committing intellectual suicide and becoming an atheist, I was an Agnostic Deist for quite some time; I couldn’t rule out God as I had no reason too or empirical evidence to do so.

I somehow or other got my faith back (or more so destroyed my skeptical self and instead of saying, ‘I doubt it.’ Saying, ‘perhaps.’) and then it struck me, atheism is some what irrational. There are always reasons why one does or does not believe in something. For example I don’t believe in Santa because there is no man on the North pole and it is a fact that Santa was created by Coca Cola. I have reasons not to believe in pokemon, flying tea pots or even a flying spaghetti monster. When I ask an atheist why they do not believe in God, they have no rational reasons to deny His existence none, zero, nada.  This is rather odd, many atheists are famous scientists who are used to using empirical evidence and observation their whole lives and yet make the illogical conclusion that God does not exist. Dawkins thought that evolution proved that God was not in existence but was by humans (which is a big assumption). Dawkins has not ‘disproven’ God, he has dismissed a God some fundamentalists believe in.

A reason for a belief or lack of belief is a necessity for something to hold any weight.

  1. I do not believe in God
  2. Therefore, God is not real

Premise 2 needs to be backed up by something. Think about it for a second, any non belief you have is backed up by reason; you do not believe not believe n Zeus because you do not believe in him, you have some concrete reasons not to believe he exists. Perhaps even the Judeo-Christian God, you have reasons to dismiss. But you can not logically dismiss God. A being who created the universe may exist.

Some people will then try to bring in the flying tea pot argument, 'We can never dismiss that a flying tea pot does not exist, should we believe in it?' When rational people are talking about God they do not give Him any form (They may imagine He has a brown beard and appears somewhat Jewish) but we have no idea the form of God. God and the flying tea pot are not on the same page, one would have to use scientific evidence and observation to see if a flying tea pot exists. One can not see God, therefore we enter the realm of meta-physics.   So what are your guys views? I will take back what I said about atheism being irrational if I am proven wrong (note: I am talking about strong atheism, not weak).

Views: 380

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why would a purpose imposed on us by a god be objective?

Also, on the subject on tsunamis - how hard would it be for an all knowing god to warn people ahead of time? I'll let the idea that god has nothing to do with a system he created slide for now.

There's another factor that has not been mentioned so far that I think is important in the context of your charges Adam, and that is the so-called "irrationality" of atheism. This came up a lot in the early days of the Rational Response Squad site (because of the name). There is, admittedly, a sense that Christianity is "rational," but it is mostly in the sense that Taner Edis used it (see old Point of Inquiry episodes w/ him), as in rational choice theory- that is to say that Christianity is mostly rational in the sense that it is chosen as a pleasing consumer product in the marketplace of comforting ideas. It is considered "rational" to go with majority opinions. If you are merely saying strong atheism is irrational for making a positive statement about god, that's one thing, but to say so-called weak-atheism is irrational, considering the lack of evidence, your "rationality" is clearly only in the vein of a mere consumer choice IMO (you may say that the moral principles give the decision weight as well, but that is easy enough to refute).

First it is not "I do not believe in God".  Its "I don't believe there is a God."

Only a liar, a fool, or a madman thinks he knows how the universe began.  Which one are you?

 

Seriously, we don't even know what all the possible explanations are, much less which one is correct.  One thing we can be reasonably certain of:  There is no logic behind thinking that it was an invisible magical being who did it.  THAT theory has always been wrong!  And is just plain stupid to anyone not living in a hut in the dark ages.

'Here is the reason the universe did not need a cause and please do not include real physicists when you say "no serious person denies that the universe has a cause" because many do think the universe did not have cause or even a starting point.'

 

To my knowledge most physicists either believe the universe's cause was God or quantum fluctuations?

'Atheism is the use of reason.'

 

No it isnt. Rene Descartes, Soren Kierkegaard, Immanuel Kant all believed in God and they used reason and they have greatly shaped how we think and reason.

 

'There's another factor that has not been mentioned so far that I think is important in the context of your charges Adam, and that is the so-called "irrationality" of atheism. This came up a lot in the early days of the Rational Response Squad site (because of the name). There is, admittedly, a sense that Christianity is "rational," but it is mostly in the sense that Taner Edis used it (see old Point of Inquiry episodes w/ him), as in rational choice theory- that is to say that Christianity is mostly rational in the sense that it is chosen as a pleasing consumer product in the marketplace of comforting ideas. It is considered "rational" to go with majority opinions. If you are merely saying strong atheism is irrational for making a positive statement about god, that's one thing, but to say so-called weak-atheism is irrational, considering the lack of evidence, your "rationality" is clearly only in the vein of a mere consumer choice IMO (you may say that the moral principles give the decision weight as well, but that is easy enough to refute).'

 

Christianity can be rational, however, you do have to change your world view ie. believe in a theistic God.

 

'Only a liar, a fool, or a madman thinks he knows how the universe began.  Which one are you?'

 

I am not a liar, I am not a madman, so I guess that means I am a fool?

Descartes, Kierkegaard, and Kant used reason only as long as the issue wasn't their religion.  Then, like all religionists, they suddenly changed their intellectual standards and used any jesuitical trick they needed to make their delusion seem rational.

 

Here, in a nutshell, is why god belief is not logical:

 

http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/09/atheism-is-simply-...

 

I know.  I suspect most of us know this.  Having once believed these myths myself and having witnessed the extent to which they make the world an evil and miserable place, I cannot help but throw in a few thoughts in hopes that one of them will take root and lead yet another person out of the dark ages.

'Then, like all religionists, they suddenly changed their intellectual standards and used any jesuitical trick they needed to make their delusion seem rational.'

 

Are you serious?

(I will look at your blog later)

 

'Here's my summary of what I am seeing here: We are trying to argue logic, science and to use reason in an argument with someone who is using a subjective logic, selected bits of poorly understood popular science, and his own internal philosophy based on a mix of subjective reasoning and religious dogma. In other words, he is defending faith while we are defending science and objective observation. There is no arguing against faith'

 

Are you serious? Because you are not objective enough to see were I am coming from you are going to throw me in with all the other Christians?

"

'Then, like all religionists, they suddenly changed their intellectual standards and used any jesuitical trick they needed to make their delusion seem rational.'

 

Are you serious?"

 

Completely.  The use of "reason" to support a foregone conclusion is not honest and therefore not really in the realm of reason.  It inevitably leads to twisted logic and outright dishonesty resulting the appearance of supporting false conclusions.

It's a very important point, but one you seem not to grasp.  Descartes and others like him were smart men - geniuses, some of them - but the existence of any god  does not depend on how intelligent its followers are.  Even the smartest of men and women can be prone to believing silly things, particularly when nearly everyone in their slice of the world at the time held such beliefs.

 

Try to avoid using the Argument from Authority in any serious conversation, Adam, because it can just as easily work against you.  Just as there are plenty of intelligent and otherwise rational people who believe in a deity, so are there plenty of intelligent and rational people who don't.

Very good points, Brian.

 

Adam, to illustrate Brian's point, can you name any great thinkers from the last 150 years who were religious?  I'll give you a big hint:  Don't try the Einstein believed in god argument.  He didn't.

 

http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/11/newton-and-einstei...

 

"When I ask an atheist why they do not believe in God, they have no rational reasons to deny His existence none, zero, nada."

 

Really?!!!  A complete lack of evidence for something is not a rational reason to refuse to believe in it?  The fact that every "god" whose existence is no longer "necessary" to fill the gap in someone's knowledge is now considered a ludicrous and primitive construct--even by you--is not a rational reason to think all gods are such?  The fact that new religions are founded all the time and they all are clearly con games being played on the foolish by deeply disturbed and power mad individuals isn't a rational reason?

 

How can you expect us to respect you at all when you say incredible things like that?  What is the point of even trying to debate someone who says things that are obviously not true?  Either you are a liar or completely delusional.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service