The Irrationality of Some Forms of Atheism
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.
- I do not believe in God
- 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).
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rodrica Davis on -
Why are you going to blame it on God. If I was to get malaria does that mean that God does not love me?
Because according to your christian beliefs, god is all-powerful. One cannot be all-powerful and not be in control of everything which is why so many believers try to create a justification for every terrible thing that occurs. I cannot imagine god having me die of some painful disease that turns my insides to mush and doing so in the name of love. Maybe a twisted wive-beater husband love perhaps. Which is also disproves your idea of free will. How can god be omnipotent if people and the devil have the will to disobey him?
-
Permalink Reply by Gaytor on -
I think you missed my point. I was only saying that we can not prove/disprove anything 100%.
I knew what you meant about Santa. That same way you feel about Santa is how I feel about God. He doesn't show up on Google Earth either. So you can't prove anything 100%? Do we have proof that we have been debating a few points of our understanding of religion? If we can't, what are you looking at? Can we prove that water is comprised of H2O? That the Earth Revolves around the Sun?
You don't need a theologian to decide morality. The Bible lays out the context of enough of it's claims without the need to understand what kind of culture accepts the murder of their own children, Jephthah (Also see Abraham, the Flood when God Mass Murders "his children" and revelations when Jesus promises to murder "his chldren".). This isn't deep theology. This isn't a question relating to the nuance of a translation like did Jesus tell Nicodemus about being "reborn" in John 3:3 when the premise of the story is that being reborn is a double-entendre. Yet it doesn't translate as such in Aramaic. Meaning, that the conversation never happened. That's a good place to call in a theologian.
So far you have said that we can't prove or disprove anything, which you know is not correct. You have asserted that you need a theologian to understand the very basic tenants of the Bible. Shutting down the eye of reason is the only way that you can assert these things. It's a dangerous proposition to say that you are going to follow the claims of religion and theologians without double checking them or verifying. This is the type of thinking that cause Jan Hus and Martin Luther to rise up. We are more than 500 years removed from Copernicus, Galileo, and Jan Hus yet you still haven't learned the lesson about thinking for yourself. I present to you, your thinking is exactly the type that is frightfully and historically dangerous. Introspection and skepticism of all things will benefit you.
-
Permalink Reply by Sadly 'M' iCantSay on -
C'mon!! You can't just ignore the logic in who is the one that must provide evidence for what they claim?
The existence is the thing that must be proven.
No evidence = No god .. The "FACT" that there is no evidence is why we don't believe!!
You claim that there is a god! We just say that there is no evidence that he exists, therefore we don't believe!
I know that I'm saying the same point 3 times, it's so you can get it, get our reason for not believing!
-
Permalink Reply by Rodrica Davis on
-
He still won't understand dude. I am starting to think its pointless to try.
-
Permalink Reply by Pedro Bedard on -
I think, given the number of responses here, that you HAVE been proven wrong, several times.
Do I have to logically dismiss the existence of Leprechauns or Fairies to you as well as a non-existent god?
Come on man, think logically for 2 seconds and you'll see that god is no more real than any other mythical being.
-
Permalink Reply by Ava Wilson on -
The problem is that humans are born more or less atheist. If I never told my daughter about God, she wouldn't have a clue about him or the Bible. The burden of proof is on the religious. Atheism is a logical default.
-
Permalink Reply by Richmond on -
Ava to take your logic even furthur. Wouldn't God tell your daughter he or she exists? You are right. it makes no sense.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Viceroy on -
The problem starts with expecting things to be "proven" to you deductively, rather than by going upon the inductive probabilities we actually base our lives upon. What exactly do you mean by "exist"? Most atheists believe that you can't "disprove" God deductively, so perhaps that God of the Abstract Realm of Deductive Proofs could "exist" (like the number 4 "exists"). Fine, you can have Him. And I'm sure that abstract god loves you every bit as much as the number 4 does. Let's see if he ever comes out of the world of human representations and into the *real* world. In the real world, when we say someone exists, we usually mean something along the lines that we have seen them, spoken with them, actually audibly heard their voice. I'm so tired of theists claiming they have "met" Jesus- that they "know" Him and/or that He has "spoken" to them. Disingenuous rhetorical propaganda tactics that lead to people like you with metaphysical entitlement issues, asking these types of poorly conceived questions. Sorry to be so harsh, but please step back and remember the real world *first*.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam Weber on
-
‘And why can't you give yourself purpose?’
I can I never said I needed God to have a purpose. One needs God for objective purpose. What you described below was subjective purpose.
‘That doesn't seem like an argument to me’.
They were not arguments, I was asked about my beliefs on God, so I gave a few.
‘In other words. Because no one can yet disprove your theory, you're going to believe it anyway. Even if you theory has no empirical evidence to back it up. Typical.’
No I believe it makes more sense; there had to be a cause and that cause was God.
‘Anyone who has loved knows that love is NOT perfect.’
When I say ‘love’ I mean Agape love or unconditional love. The love a mother should/does have for a child, does not compare to God’s love.
‘Because according to your christian beliefs, god is all-powerful. One cannot be all-powerful and not be in control of everything which is why so many believers try to create a justification for every terrible thing that occurs. I cannot imagine god having me die of some painful disease that turns my insides to mush and doing so in the name of love. Maybe a twisted wive-beater husband love perhaps. Which is also disproves your idea of free will. How can god be omnipotent if people and the devil have the will to disobey him?’
I don’t believe that a devil exists. God can still be in control of everything and ‘allow’ bad things to happen. Shit happens if you are a Christian, Jew or a Jedi. It does not mean that there is no God or that God is not in control of everything.
‘I knew what you meant about Santa. That same way you feel about Santa is how I feel about God.’
I dont disagree with that. I am calling people ‘irrational’ who say:
I dont see evidence for God
Therefore God does not exist
This is illogical as God could exist
‘He doesn't show up on Google Earth either.’
Why would He? When Google makes Google Heaven I am sure you will see God sitting on His throne.
‘You have asserted that you need a theologian to understand the very basic tenants of the Bible.’
I never said that. I said to understand the Bible fully you should either get a PhD in theology and learn Greek and Hebrew (and perhaps Aramaic) or read commentaries which CREDIBLE people have written. People see the Bible is simple and easy to understand, it isnt. Not everyone can understand the Bible.
‘Martin Luther’
Martin Luther rose against the corruption in the church.
‘No evidence = No god’
How so? No evidence according to you = No God in your opinion. You don’t know if there is or isn’t a God, no one does.
‘The problem is that humans are born more or less atheist.’
Born Agnostics
‘I'm so tired of theists claiming they have "met" Jesus- that they "know" Him and/or that He has "spoken" to them.’
Same. I am not a theist who claims to have had a conversation with Jesus or met Him before.
-
Permalink Reply by Rodrica Davis on
-
"I can I never said I needed God to have a purpose. One needs God for objective purpose. What you described below was subjective purpose."
The question then follows why do you desire this objective purpose? And why should we care to have it? And given that god has not proven at al, what you call objective is really subjective. You're giving yourself a purpose and that purpose is to worship an angry, childish, capricious, vindictive imaginary being.
No I believe it makes more sense; there had to be a cause and that cause was God.
Dude if you are going to make claims, on here you have to back them with evidence or an logical argument. 1) Prove the universe had to have a cause and the it couldn't have formed through quantum physics uncaused. 2) Prove that the first cause of a personal god. 3) Prove that it was your god. If you can't prove either of those things then why are you positing them? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Born Agnostics
An agnostics is a person who says one can not know if god does or does not exist. That is irrelevant to the question of belief. Agnostic is really just a adjective and not so much a noun unless you are one of the adamant agnostics who claim neither faith nor disbelief. A child does not have the mind to be adamant on knowledge of god's existence therefore it doesn't believe in god which makes it an atheist.
Perhaps you should read a paper I did on this subject. Here on thinkatheist forums.
If you are saying that gnostic atheism is irrational then fine I would agree with you. But above while you tried to distinguish between the two agnostic and gnostic atheist, you didn't do well. Some of the discussion intro you seem to lump is all together. You can stand to be a little more clear. I found gnostic atheism just as irrational as agnostic and gnostic theism.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on -
Adam,
On the subject of gnostic atheism (the claim that there absolutely are no god/gods/deities), I'll agree with you. Being able to claim that as fact would require either vastly more knowledge than humanity possess or evidence that demonstrates that the existence of a deity is impossible. Individual deities can (and have been) shown to be internally inconsistent, created by man, etc. We know that human cultures create gods to worship. We have literally thousands of gods in our history, and have seen the rise of new ones within the past century.
However, there is a huge leap between 'not impossible' and 'therefore I have reason to believe one exists'. It is not impossible that intelligent aliens are living in the Rigel star system, but that does not mean that I believe that they exist and are there. Without actual evidence supporting the existence of something, there is no rational reason to accord it belief.
I'd say that believing in a deity without evidence to support that belief would be the 'intellectual suicide' you attribute to atheism. So, what rational evidence do you have for believing in your god? Or are you being as irrational as you accuse atheists of being?
-
Permalink Reply by Adam Weber on
-
‘The question then follows why do you desire this objective purpose? And why should we care to have it? And given that god has not proven at al, what you call objective is really subjective.’
All is said only God can us objective purpose, sure we can create our own purpose. Just because if God was to exist we would have objective purpose, does not mean that God does exist.
‘You're giving yourself a purpose and that purpose is to worship an angry, childish, capricious, vindictive imaginary being.’
This is a straw man.
‘1) Prove the universe had to have a cause and the it couldn't have formed through quantum physics uncaused.’
No one serious person denies that the universe had a cause. Currently it all comes down to if one believes the cause for the universe was quantum fluctuations or if it was a being, which people call God.
‘Prove that it was your god’
My God? Perhaps my definition of God is wrong, but it doesn’t make it ‘my God’
‘A child does not have the mind to be adamant on knowledge of god's existence therefore it doesn't believe in god which makes it an atheist.’
A child does not have the mind not to believe in God either, therefore lets say a baby doesn’t have any beliefs; it is neutral.
‘So Adam, your unconditionally loving god allows bad things to happen to good people AND bad people? Thousands die in an earthquake or tsunami, many of whom are avid believers, praying to the end and that is unconditional love?’
Lets look at the logic here. The tectonic plates collide with one another releasing a huge amount of geologic energy, which sparks a huge tsunami. Should a rational person blame God (who had nothing to do with the process) or nature (because it had everything to do with the process)?
‘I'd say that believing in a deity without evidence to support that belief would be the 'intellectual suicide' you attribute to atheism. So, what rational evidence do you have for believing in your god? Or are you being as irrational as you accuse atheists of being?’
I do take back what I said about ‘committing intellectual suicide’ there have been some very intelligent atheists.
I do have reasons for my belief in a God, they are philosophical arguments, not based on empirical evidence, they are based off empirical evidence.
What's new today
Events
Forum
America - "Love It or Leave It"
Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 7 minutes ago. 27 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Christian Man Claims Native American Statue On License Plate Violates His Freedom Of Religion, Sues Oklahoma
Posted by Rob Klaers on June 17, 2013 at 2:00am 6 Comments 3 Likes
Videos
The Latest Giz Gad
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
