Are atheists irrational?

[ChristineM]

Since "deity" just means "god", I would think it was strange if you found a god that wasn't a deity.

I really don't know where you are going with this. Yes deity = god, no argument there?

My post was not about definitions but human imagination.

 

[LukeS]

A definition of rationality: beliefs actions and even desires are rational when in accord with proper reasoning. As "atheism" is not really about this, in a direct manner, its hard to make sweeping judgements. There are no "atheist ethics" so to speak, and so ethical rationality is a bit of a void. Although atheists can and do have their personal ethical systems, they've not really had a community leader - in Islam there is a concept of din which means religion , judgement, recompense but also connoted community too. Its meshed into the whole faith, whereas atheism is more often regarded as a mere absence of belief in God than supplying a matrix of action.

 

[Valjean]

A definition of rationality: beliefs actions and even desires are rational when in accord with proper reasoning. As "atheism" is not really about this, in a direct manner, its hard to make sweeping judgements. There are no "atheist ethics" so to speak, and so ethical rationality is a bit of a void. Although atheists can and do have their personal ethical systems, they've not really had a community leader - in Islam there is a concept of din which means religion , judgement, recompense but also connoted community too. Its meshed into the whole faith, whereas atheism is more often regarded as a mere absence of belief in God than supplying a matrix of action.

But isn't atheism's lack of belief based on 'proper reasoning'? Wouldn't that make it rational?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Provide an example of a proven prophecy, then. One that no other religious text could have made.


Nope. I'm open-minded to anything, but the Bible has demonstrated the exact opposite of reliability throughout its history. If it were reliable, we would not have thousands of different Christian denominations contesting each other over the exact meaning and content of it. You can hardly claim such a text is reliable.

1. Should you judge my hypothesis after taking only a cursory look at the data (Bible data and world history data)? The Bible predicts the Jewish people:

a) will be scattered to many nations
b) be the cream of all those nations
c) be persecuted in all those nations
d) will return to found a second Jewish state on May 14, 1948

2. The thousands of sects don't "contend" with one another over meaning. There is a Roman church and some Orthodox churches that argue with the rest of us who believe the Bible is sufficient, faith saves, etc. I've personally been to dozens of different sects and fellowships and their 10 or 11 main statements of faith are identical.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. Should you judge my hypothesis after taking only a cursory look at the data (Bible data and world history data)?

I can't judge your hypothesis at all if you present no data whatsoever.

The Bible predicts the Jewish people:

a) will be scattered to many nations

So are many members of many religions.

b) be the cream of all those nations

Matter of perspective and opinion.

c) be persecuted in all those nations

Again, so have many members of many religions.

d) will return to found a second Jewish state on May 14, 1948

Please tell me where the Bible gives that exact date.

2. The thousands of sects don't "contend" with one another over meaning.

You're delusional.

There is a Roman church and some Orthodox churches that argue with the rest of us who believe the Bible is sufficient, faith saves, etc. I've personally been to dozens of different sects and fellowships and their 10 or 11 main statements of faith are identical.

"10 or 11" isn't thousands, and if those different sects were identical then they wouldn't be different sects.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can't judge your hypothesis at all if you present no data whatsoever.


So are many members of many religions.


Matter of perspective and opinion.


Again, so have many members of many religions.


Please tell me where the Bible gives that exact date.


You're delusional.


"10 or 11" isn't thousands, and if those different sects were identical then they wouldn't be different sects.

The Bible does not give a Gregorian calendar date--it gives from the date of Cyrus's decree to return to the land to calculate 360 years times 7 = May 14, 1948 - which date was not a self-fulfilled prophecy. The date calculation came after skeptics objected to the fact that the return did not happen in 360 years.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Bible does not give a Gregorian calendar date--it gives from the date of Cyrus's decree to return to the land to calculate 360 years times 7 = May 14, 1948 - which date was not a self-fulfilled prophecy.

And where, specifically, does it say this?

The date calculation came after skeptics objected to the fact that the return did not happen in 360 years.

So, in other words, the prediction changed when it was demonstrated false. Gotcha.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I think it all comes down to personal belief and that is why some become defensive on their position whether they are athisists or theists. Several studies have shown that belief in divine concepts is a natural default position for humans and we are born believers. Though religion can be programed into people when they are young or old which is more about a particular religions teachings the opposite actually happens where people have to continually supress and replace those natural devine thoughts with worldly ideas to deny their natural position of belief.

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study

The study you posted is very misleading in that it is not analyzing the young and their innate opinions, it is only examining religiosity in a culture in correlation to the young. This is why the answers are as broad as possible since we all know that little Indian children will obviously state reincarnation as a possibility.

Belief in a deity does occur at young ages but what you call a deity is merely a confusion do to anthropomorphic tendencies of interpretation in humans. No suppression is needed for me to realize I am an atheist.

I actually have to suppress my atheism to empathize with the religious and I have tried suppressing my atheism for years without achieving anything as of yet.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And where, specifically, does it say this?


So, in other words, the prediction changed when it was demonstrated false. Gotcha.

No, and we've been over this:

There are verses that say it will be 430 years in captivity. Verses that indicate the 70 Babylonian years were wire-to-wire EXACTLY 70 years of 360 days each.

Atheists objected to the lack of the 360-year fulfillment. Years later, some Christian readers noticed the seven times punishment, did the math, worked out to our Gregorian May 14, 1948 and said, WOW.

The prediction didn't change. It is two predictions or prophesies taken together. People thought the "I'll punish seven times" was hyperbole but it was prediction.

I can give other examples. Want one?

1. King David is told his descendant will be King of Israel ETERNALLY.

2. King Solomon is told his line will be cut off from the throne.

3. Joseph in descent is direct from Solomon. If he wasn't a carpenter and there weren't Herod usurpers under Roman occupation, he would be King of Israel.

4. Mary is a direct descendant of DAVID through his son NATHAN and not his son SOLOMON.

5. Joseph weds Mary and Jesus becomes his titular firstborn, inheriting the kingship. Jesus is King eternally in the Millennium and forward.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, and we've been over this:

There are verses that say it will be 430 years in captivity. Verses that indicate the 70 Babylonian years were wire-to-wire EXACTLY 70 years of 360 days each.

I asked "where". Where does it say this?

Atheists objected to the lack of the 360-year fulfillment. Years later, some Christian readers noticed the seven times punishment, did the math, worked out to our Gregorian May 14, 1948 and said, WOW.

Show their working.

The prediction didn't change. It is two predictions or prophesies taken together. People thought the "I'll punish seven times" was hyperbole but it was prediction.

Yes, it did change. Some people arbitrarily decided to manipulate the numbers (which you haven't even given the original or workings of yet).

I can give other examples. Want one?

1. King David is told his descendant will be King of Israel ETERNALLY.

Obviously not fulfilled by definition.

2. King Solomon is told his line will be cut off from the throne.

Like practically every other royal dynasty of almost every other kingdom or empire?

3. Joseph in descent is direct from Solomon. If he wasn't a carpenter and there weren't Herod usurpers under Roman occupation, he would be King of Israel.

How is that a prediction?

4. Mary is a direct descendant of DAVID through his son NATHAN and not his son SOLOMON.

Also not a prediction, just a description.

5. Joseph weds Mary and Jesus becomes his titular firstborn, inheriting the kingship. Jesus is King eternally in the Millennium and forward.

And Harry Potter was really a wizard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I asked "where". Where does it say this?


Show their working.


Yes, it did change. Some people arbitrarily decided to manipulate the numbers (which you haven't even given the original or workings of yet).


Obviously not fulfilled by definition.


Like practically every other royal dynasty of almost every other kingdom or empire?


How is that a prediction?


Also not a prediction, just a description.


And Harry Potter was really a wizard.

The Babylonian captivity ended in the spring of 536 B.C.E., 1st
Nisan. This date is the starting point for our calculations. The
period of worldwide captivity would last 2,520 biblical years x
360 days = 907,200 days. Converting this figure into our calendar
year we divide the 907,200 days by 365.25 to reach a total of
2,483.8 calendar years. (Remember that there is only one year
between 1 B.C.E. and 1 C.E.; there was no Year Zero). The end of
Israel's worldwide captivity would occur after a total of 2,483.8
years had elapsed from the end of the Babylonian Captivity in the
spring of 536 B.C.E.

End of Babylonian Captivity: Spring 536 B.C.E. + the duration of
Worldwide Captivity: 2,483.8 Calendar Years = When the Worldwide
Captivity would end: Spring 1948.


The Rebirth of Israel: May 14th 1948

On May 14, 1948, the Jewish people proclaimed the independence of
Israel and the end of their worldwide captivity at the precise
time prophesied by the prophet Ezekiel. On this very day a united
Israel took its place as a sovereign, independent state among the
nations.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Babylonian captivity ended in the spring of 536 B.C.E., 1st
Nisan. This date is the starting point for our calculations. The
period of worldwide captivity would last 2,520 biblical years x
360 days = 907,200 days. Converting this figure into our calendar
year we divide the 907,200 days by 365.25 to reach a total of
2,483.8 calendar years. (Remember that there is only one year
between 1 B.C.E. and 1 C.E.; there was no Year Zero). The end of
Israel's worldwide captivity would occur after a total of 2,483.8
years had elapsed from the end of the Babylonian Captivity in the
spring of 536 B.C.E.

End of Babylonian Captivity: Spring 536 B.C.E. + the duration of
Worldwide Captivity: 2,483.8 Calendar Years = When the Worldwide
Captivity would end: Spring 1948.


The Rebirth of Israel: May 14th 1948

On May 14, 1948, the Jewish people proclaimed the independence of
Israel and the end of their worldwide captivity at the precise
time prophesied by the prophet Ezekiel. On this very day a united
Israel took its place as a sovereign, independent state among the
nations.

Copying and pasting from a website and not giving a source or explanation is not a response to any of my arguments or requests.

 

[stevevw]

The study you posted is very misleading in that it is not analyzing the young and their innate opinions, it is only examining religiosity in a culture in correlation to the young. This is why the answers are as broad as possible since we all know that little Indian children will obviously state reincarnation as a possibility.

Belief in a deity does occur at young ages but what you call a deity is merely a confusion do to anthropomorphic tendencies of interpretation in humans. No suppression is needed for me to realize I am an atheist.

I actually have to suppress my atheism to empathize with the religious and I have tried suppressing my atheism for years without achieving anything as of yet.

There are a number of studies which show we are born believers and belief in divine concepts come natural to children. IE

Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief - belief in mind-body dualism, and belief in divine agents -- come naturally to young children.
Religion is natural. - PubMed - NCBI
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6618056_Religion_Is_Natural

Studies have shown that a childs natural tendency to believe isnot from any anthropomorphic tendencies. It is something they just do naturally and they have been born that way. This has been shown even for children growing up in athiestic familes. Studies found that children have an natural and untaught concept of God that does not come merely from anthropomorphizing.

Results revealed that preschoolers distinguished God and the special animals as having greater perceptual access than humans and normal animals, who were predicted to have limited perceptual access. These results offer further support for the theory that in developing a concept of God, even young children differentiate God from humans and resist incorporating certain aspects of the human concept into their concept of God
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1504_2
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233075942_RESEARCH_Do_You_See_What_I_See_Young_Children's_Assumptions_About_God's_Perceptual_Abilities[/QUOTE]

 

[BilliardsBall]

Copying and pasting from a website and not giving a source or explanation is not a response to any of my arguments or requests.

Neither is your "no, I don't think so," a response. I've asked you numerous questions that you didn't deign to answer, i.e. you are a skeptic on a forum.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Neither is your "no, I don't think so," a response. I've asked you numerous questions that you didn't deign to answer, i.e. you are a skeptic on a forum.

I've answered every argument and question you have addressed to me. Give me a single example of where I have responded to anything you've written with just a "No, I don't think so".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've answered every argument and question you have addressed to me. Give me a single example of where I have responded to anything you've written with just a "No, I don't think so".

You have answered all my questions, but I take your philosophical and general statements as "I don't think so". I look for fact-based argumentation but typically find it emotion-laden and (per the OP) irrational from skeptics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have answered all my questions, but I take your philosophical and general statements as "I don't think so". I look for fact-based argumentation but typically find it emotion-laden and (per the OP) irrational from skeptics.

Apparently, you aren't interest in fact-based argumentation, because you literally just said that what you said earlier has absolutely no facts to support it. Nothing I've done has been emotion-laden or irrational, and you can't demonstrate a single clear-cut example of where I have been.

You, on the other hand:

- Have completely ignored facts that refute your arguments (such as the use of rape in the Bible)
- Have repeatedly ignored entire arguments and instead only responded to a single sentence in the argument by clearly misinterpreting it
- Have resorted to personal remarks when you can't formulate a rational argument (this post being a perfect example)
- Have copied and pasted your arguments from websites without providing a source
- Have avoided answering simple questions about the credibility of your statements

There is no point in debating with you any further if you're genuinely this incapable of self-analysis and are projecting this hard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Apparently, you aren't interest in fact-based argumentation, because you literally just said that what you said earlier has absolutely no facts to support it. Nothing I've done has been emotion-laden or irrational, and you can't demonstrate a single clear-cut example of where I have been.

You, on the other hand:

- Have completely ignored facts that refute your arguments (such as the use of rape in the Bible)
- Have repeatedly ignored entire arguments and instead only responded to a single sentence in the argument by clearly misinterpreting it
- Have resorted to personal remarks when you can't formulate a rational argument (this post being a perfect example)
- Have copied and pasted your arguments from websites without providing a source
- Have avoided answering simple questions about the credibility of your statements

There is no point in debating with you any further if you're genuinely this incapable of self-analysis and are projecting this hard.

I agree. There is no point in debating with you further if you're this confused as to where I'm coming from and so hard-hearted that you won't accept any of my propositions.

 

[McBell]

I agree. There is no point in debating with you further if you're this confused as to where I'm coming from and so hard-hearted that you won't accept any of my propositions.

I seriously doubt any one is confused as to where you are coming from but you.

It is rather difficult to take you seriously when you accuse others, who are not guilty of that which you accuse them, of the very things you are doing.

 

[Erebus]

But isn't atheism's lack of belief based on 'proper reasoning'? Wouldn't that make it rational?

Eh, I would think that depends on the Atheist in question.

"I don't believe in gods because I haven't encountered anything that would convince me of their existence." - Seems rational enough to me.

"I don't believe in gods because the Bible is bad." - Getting a bit shaky there.

"I don't believe in gods because the clown who watches me sleep told me they aren't there." - Hopefully you see where I'm going with this