• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are atheists irrational?

you want to talk irrational? christians who not only believe 'god' has a penis but that their 'god' is 'unconditionally loving' while sending most people to eternal suffering in 'hell' (about as massive a contradiction as you can find); buddhist monks who believe those-with-wombs (men-with-wombs - wo-men) are spiritually inferior and must be reborn as males to become 'enlightened', and whose spiritual progress is set back lifetimes by the mere touch of a polluted 'wo-man'; muslims who cover their wo-men from head-to-toe and stone them for the slightest infraction... THAT is irrational !!!
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
As an avid atheist and to the greater degree anti-theist I have been trying for over a year to come to grips with what I believe and stand for. So many atheists prattle about reason and logic while even when I was a Muslim I did the exact same thing although with less intellectual contradictions. The more I speak to atheists and try to understand things that are valued to us like science and pragmaticism I find myself incapable of rationalizing my own atheism.

When I was a Muslim the primary reason I left Islam was because of other Muslims and also become of the ideology yet here I am in something that should be creedless and the minute I question something that is secular I am a public enemy amongst atheists. Just by questioned transgender issues I have been called a fake atheist and closet Christian. I used to cling to being a deist for this very reason as I could never understand the anger I witnessed by atheists, it made no sense to be angry at not religion but at secular ideas.

I witness conservatives, Christians, libertarians and pragmatic thinkers on religion criticize atheist for creating gods out of secular constructs and I can't help but wonder that this is the truth. As of now I am sure this is the truth as I am incapable of finding an atheist who is stringent with his principles and a fervent believer in safeguarding his own morals.

As of now I cannot call myself an atheist anymore. I do not believe in the supernatural yet all I have left is philosophy and all that emanates from it.

Atheism is a rational position to me yet every atheist I know is so irrational.


I love [sic] these people who try to pigeonhole atheists.

Atheist: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Oxford English dictionary

Other than that all bets are off.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I would assume that the reason for that is that they can't remember being without a god belief and see it as having been present in them from the beginning
I wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the reason they give you. To insist it would be an imposition on my part. If I had to hazard a guess to how they would respond to your story, it's that you were too young to remember your connection to God and you forgot it like an old faded friendship. Which would also be an imposition on you, by the way.

Wouldn't that depend on your purpose?
Sure.

I'm sure that you realize that an atheist responding to a theist is not the same thing as calling atheism a response to theism.
For devils advocacys sake, I would call atheism a response to theism historically, etymologically and culturally. Nobody would be considering atheism or discussing it or identifing as an atheist without theism existing.

What would you call a person who responded with, "What's a god?" [please answer]
Ignostic. ;) Or theological noncognitivism. Or non-theism (which is not considered the same as atheism. Depending on your definition of theism, deism would also be non-theistic but not atheistic.) It really depends on the theologian or philosopher you ask.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
"Atheism, the word, wouldn't exist if there was no theism"

I thought it would be clear enough that I am not talking about the word itself.

If atheism is a lack of belief or no belief in gods, then theism is a direct response to that.

You label the word, until humanity was civilised enough to nurture the concept of gods there was no need for a word to describe normality. So yes the word theist existed before atheist. However humans being are born godless, no belief in gods whatsoever, which is closer to atheism than religion that has to be taught.

No belief in gods, what is now labeled atheism came before theism
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
You label the word, until humanity was civilised enough to nurture the concept of gods there was no need for a word to describe normality. So yes the word theist existed before atheist. However humans being are born godless, no belief in gods whatsoever, which is closer to atheism than religion that has to be taught.

No belief in gods, what is now labeled atheism came before theism

Why are you telling me this?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I sort of left out details, my mistake. I do not think many of these things are wrong. I just question their validity or usefulness in social progression. Questioning is the primary reason skepticism even exist and yet I as a skeptic am persecuted by skeptics for being skeptical. This only makes me think many atheists are ideological instead of skeptical which makes it no worse than any other religion. The whole reason I left religion is to get away from this and I left one of the most ideological religions possible.

Sorry to hear that. I don't think real skeptics should be persecuting you for being a skeptic. Also, I'm not sure how much atheism actually makes one a skeptic. Maybe they're just God deniers.
 

MHz

Member
Not at all, the Book isn't a sure fire way for everybody that is exposed to it becomes a believer. What it does say is, 'if you are a Gentile you are destined to be gathered to God before the lake of fire is the only other option' is how the plot goes.
If you die before you believe in God you go into a sleep that seems to last as long as one blink and then you wake yo at the Great White Throne where chastisement and mercy are the order of the day. After that all the ones gathered are given a drink of living water from the river found in New Jerusalem. They are the last to be gathered, the first ones gathered are at the start of the 1,000 year reign.

Re:7:9-17:
After this I beheld,
and,
lo,
a great multitude,
which no man could number,
of all nations,
and kindreds,
and people,
and tongues,
stood before the throne,
and before the Lamb,
clothed with white robes,
and palms in their hands;
And cried with a loud voice,
saying,
Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne,
and unto the Lamb.
And all the angels stood round about the throne,
and about the elders and the four beasts,
and fell before the throne on their faces,
and worshipped God,
Saying,
Amen:
Blessing,
and glory,
and wisdom,
and thanksgiving,
and honour,
and power,
and might,
be unto our God for ever and ever.
Amen.
And one of the elders answered,
saying unto me,
What are these which are arrayed in white robes?
and whence came they?
And I said unto him,
Sir,
thou knowest.
And he said to me,
These are they which came out of great tribulation,
and have washed their robes,
and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Therefore are they before the throne of God,
and serve him day and night in his temple:
and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
They shall hunger no more,
neither thirst any more;
neither shall the sun light on them,
nor any heat.
For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them,
and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters:
and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Re:20:4:
And I saw thrones,
and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given unto them:
and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,
and for the word of God,
and which had not worshipped the beast,
neither his image,
neither had received his mark upon their foreheads,
or in their hands;
and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Eze:47:8-12:
Then said he unto me,
These waters issue out toward the east country,
and go down into the desert,
and go into the sea:
which being brought forth into the sea,
the waters shall be healed.
And it shall come to pass,
that every thing that liveth,
which moveth,
whithersoever the rivers shall come,
shall live:
and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither:
for they shall be healed;
and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
And it shall come to pass,
that the fishers shall stand upon it from En-gedi even unto En-eglaim;
they shall be a place to spread forth nets;
their fish shall be according to their kinds,
as the fish of the great sea,
exceeding many.
But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed;
they shall be given to salt.
And by the river upon the bank thereof,
on this side and on that side,
shall grow all trees for meat,
whose leaf shall not fade,
neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed:
it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat,
and the leaf thereof for medicine.

The advantage of being gathered first is you get to live inside New Jerusalem and the rest make their homes outside of the wall of that City.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So since atheism is a word that has multiple meanings, it is pointless to discuss whether or not atheism is a response to theism without first indicating which meaning you are using.

Agreed.

That's a very common problem with a ton of words common to these discussions such as god, objective, absolute, truth, proof, spirit, hypocrisy, hell, supernatural, macroevolution, "kinds," and as was recently discussed, irrational.

In virtually every discussion of these topics, the words are being used differently by different posters, often with no clear and distinct idea of what is meant by any of those words.

In this thread, one definition of atheist being used is somebody who not only has no god belief, but somebody who has actively and explicitly rejected god claims rather than somebody who merely lacks one. This seems to be the definition that those calling atheism a reaction to theism are using. God claims must exist to reject them, but need not exist to merely lack one.

I'm anxious to see if I get an answer to the question of what one calls a lifelong atheist before he has a concept of gods to reject. He's surely not a theist and never has been one.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think the problem with is that two different ideas are conflated in a single word: atheism.
atheism can refer either to a lack of belief OR a disbelief

This is a subtle but significant distinction.
The absence of an idea leaves nothing to accept or reject (believe or disbelieve), but the presence of an idea gives something to accept or reject (believe or disbelieve).

So if you lack belief in a god or gods (also known as weak atheism), then you aren't explicitly asserting that there are none.
Therefore, weak atheism is not a response to theism.

But if you have a disbelief in a god or gods (also known as strong atheism), then you have taken the extra step to explicitly deny.
Therefore, strong atheism is a response to theism.
Good points. These atheist discussions always seem to break up over conflicting definitions.
A definition, in my opinion, uses an essential feature to distinguish a thing from all other things; a feature unique to the thing defined. The single feature common to all varieties of atheism is lack of belief, so when I hear "atheism," unmodified, I assume it refers to this essential understanding, ie: so called weak atheism. If someone's adding additional baggage I'd thank them to include a modifier to clarify things.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
........

What would you call a person who responded with, "What's a god?" [please answer]

I call that person an atheist as well. You might need to tell him what atheism is, but as soon as you did, he would tell you that he's always been an atheist.

If you asked that same person if he is a vertebrate or invertebrate, he might also ask you what those are. Once you explained, and showed him an X-ray of his vertebrae, he would tell you that he is a vertebrate and likely has always been one even though he just learned the concept that day.

Try using that application with every single word in the English language that describes something. I take atheism as a meaningful term, follows the same way that any other word is formed with porpoise to describe or apply with something.

Dunno why people get confused over the fact that atheism follows theism.

Atheism certainly did not precede theism.

The latter would have been irrational as I see it.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
To be an "atheist" is to hold the position that "God does not exist. Since there is no way to know something like that does not exist, then yes it is irrational to be an atheist.

I am an atheist, and do not assert that gods cannot or do not exist. I neither believe in gods nor claim to know anything definitive about their existence or nonexistence - a position called agnostic atheism. Others call it weak atheism.

So, given that, would you say that I'm not an atheist? Your definition above suggest you would.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
For devils advocacys sake, I would call atheism a response to theism historically, etymologically and culturally. Nobody would be considering atheism or discussing it or identifing as an atheist without theism existing.
What would you call someone who's never heard of God and therefore has no belief?
I think we already have a perfectly good word for him.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What would you call someone who's never heard of God and therefore has no belief?
I think we already have a perfectly good word for him.
Ignostic. ;) Or theological noncognitivism. Or non-theism (which is not considered the same as atheism. Depending on your definition of theism, deism would also be non-theistic but not atheistic.) It really depends on the theologian or philosopher you ask.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
@Sha'irullah, you're basically complaining that most atheists you know are leftists. Are you really surprised?

It is not them being leftists because in all honesty most religiously affiliated leftists act civil and descent. So unless you're saying that there is such a thing as religious leftism and atheist leftism I cannot comment.

I am specifically referring to the religiosity they treat these things. I never see such a high degree of butt hurt until it is an atheist tackling these matters. I am questioning the ratio of religious anti-theists to genuine "I don't care" apatheists.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
NO WE DON'T!!
We have great respect for marriage, anything that recognises long lasting love and friendship is good. I am married. The difference is that we have a wider definition of marriage than many theists.
Atheists because we know this is our only life treasurer it more than theists who hope for a better life when they die. We are not expecting that, We also treasure the pregnant woman and respect her decision as a living person above that of a partially formed embryo. We aren't pro-abortion we are pro-choice.
Gender, well I'm male, my wife is female but who cares, if someone is in between that is fine. I'd trust them with my child more than a frustrated catholic priest.
We are wound up about god(s) because of the harm they cause by ruining the best minds into thinking irrational thought.

Read about non-believers before you start assuming what we believe.

I am a non-believer so why are you telling me about my own group? I know my own group well which is my complaint.

Also, so many weird phrases in your posts that are nonsensical to atheism. Also I never regarded myself as an atheist as anti-theism was much more fitting.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
To be an "atheist" is to hold the position that "God does not exist. Since there is no way to know something like that does not exist, then yes it is irrational to be an atheist. But not to be a nonbeliever or agnostic. Or, as the lead character in my new novel puts it: "If God there be then I am His. If not then He is mine." The title if the novel (on Amazon) is "Wayward World".

Spam much?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think much of it may depend on why one chooses not to believe.

I didn't choose to not believe just as I can't choose to believe. It's simply unbelievable to me.

Some atheists may see religion as harmful, malicious, unjust, tyrannical, and too restrictive towards human rights and freedom. Some might see religion as being extremely unreasonable for pushing it on people and imposing their beliefs

Such atheists are also antitheists, an unfortunate term since such a person is not usually the enemy of theists, but of certain forms of theism, generally the organized, politicized forms, and not of private, personal theism.
 
Top