Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[shunyadragon]

I agree that the topic of belief is a factless topic. No matter how many times I define Atheism as a position of disbelief in the existence of a God(s) ONLY, I'm still confronted with the convoluted fallacy-riddled logic of this video.

. No atheists is concerned with what any grown adult wants to believe in. The problem is that people don't claim that they BELIEVE that a God or Messenger exists, They claim that they KNOW that a God or Messenger exists, and want everyone else to know this as well. They all claim that the evidence that supports their truth claims, is found in foreign books, written in foreign languages by humans, hundreds or thousands of years ago. They also accuse anyone that don't accept their truth claims, as being foolish, arrogant, superior, irrational, or a doomed soul. Especially if they ask for at least one objective piece of evidence. The problem is not belief with atheists, it is the evidence(or lack thereof). Provide the evidence, and not only would Atheism end, but a Nobel prize would be waiting as well.

Because the brain engages in the process of compartmentalization of what we perceive through our senses, no human can be rational all the time. This is the human condition. The question about rationality is illformed. How does the mind critique or evaluate itself? How does the mind distinguish between what is rational, irrational, or more or less rational? It doesn't. What is your cognizant conception of intelligence or rationality? We simply don't have the ability to observe or sense the internal mental processes of the brain. Just how long do you think our species would survive, if we had cognitive control of our mental processes? But, since we are not dealing with facts here, everything is true, everything is false, and everything is true and false.

I do not claim to know.

We are not dealing with facts and not when we are dealing with questions of belief, we are not considering everything is true and false.

 

[shunyadragon]

But your belief is in the same category as belief in fairies. Both are religious beliefs.

Edit: more to the point, there have been many people through history who believed in fairies as deeply and sincerely as you believe in God now. Even though fairies are now brought up as a ridiculous idea, the reason they're in our culture at all is because belief in them was once widespread, just as belief in gods is widespread now.

I do not believe in fairies. You can debate the existence of fairies with the those that believe in fairyism.

 

[lukethethird]

I do not believe in fairies. You can debate the existence of fairies with the those that believe in fairyism.

So called Gods are indistinguishable from fairies to the non believer.

 

[blü 2]

Hmm. Okay.
Aren't there laws against giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

And tricking believers into thinking we can be humble is good.

Excellent point ...

 

[blü 2]

To decide which you need to know what I mean by the term God. I am afraid that you have no idea about what is God to me (or any other person).

Respectfully, it's not for want of my asking.

I invite you to indulge me and let go of your ontological naturalism for 1 hour, followed by some contemplation on what you read/see. Then we may discuss in mode of sharing information instead of arguing. For this purpose I have created a thread.

Brahman defined in Taittiriya Upanishad

Okay.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not believe in fairies. You can debate the existence of fairies with the those that believe in fairyism.

I'm not debating the existence of fairies; we're debating the existence of gods using fairies as a yardstick: how justified is belief in your god? Is it more or less justified than this other thing neither of us takes seriously?

 

[osgart]

On nature and reality, with reason and logic nothing has to necessarily follow from anything in most cases in regards to explanations of any phenomenon. Logic and reason is overrated. What is likely to one is impossible to another. Any perception of reality leads one to make connections inferred that do not have to be so. Fewer then many things are deductive. Unless one has all facts it is all still a crap shoot.

Only observable obviousness with every necessary fact can discern what is useful in any particular context. Usefulness is not necessarily explanation. All things known are approximations that are extrinsic to actuality itself.


God is not experienced, nature is brutely savage, but in the land of alternative existences perhaps there is a moral code built into everything, but not here.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not debating the existence of fairies; we're debating the existence of gods using fairies as a yardstick: how justified is belief in your god? Is it more or less justified than this other thing neither of us takes seriously?

Again, if you wish ti debate the existence of fairies take this up with the fairyists. I did not say I did nor did not take the existence fairies seriously. You brought that up. It is your problem.

 

[Polymath257]

So called Gods are indistinguishable from fairies to the non believer.

I have to admit that I don't see much difference in the evidence for them. If anything gods are *less* believable because they have more dramatic properties.

 

[Polymath257]

I sense this attitude cropping up here & there at times.
Smug heathens (like me) will claim intellectual & emotional superiority over believers.
So the OP has some merit in the suggestion that some of us be put'n on airs.
Let'm say we're not all that rational.
And let us acknowledge that.

Agreed. EVERYONE is irrational to some degree. There are even aspects of my existence that I *want* to stay irrational (appreciation of art, as an example).

But, overall, I try to make sure my *beliefs* are rationally based. I fail in this in many ways, but I try to address those failures as I become aware of them.

On the other hand, the concept of faith seems, to me, to *encourage* irrationality in beliefs. The whole point is to go beyond what rationality can provide. That is, by definition, irrational. Whether it is *good* or not is another matter.

 

[shunyadragon]

So called Gods are indistinguishable from fairies to the non believer.

You will have to ask the non believer, because I am not concerned with the existence of fairies, and I was not the one who brought it up.

 

[lukethethird]

You will have to ask the non believer, because I am not concerned with the existence of fairies, and I was not the one who brought it up.

You obviously make a distinction between fairies and gods.

 

[blü 2]

You obviously make a distinction between fairies and gods.

We have consensus among illustrators on certain kinds of fairy, though not for all. If we found a small humanoid figure born with and able to fly with small, usually transparent wings, and capable of speech (&c), we could tentatively conclude it was a fairy. (The unicorn is even clearer.)

Whereas unfortunately, a lot of people look like Leonardo da Vinci when he'd grown old, so we have no way of telling a real god from a Leonardoesque human.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I do not claim to know.

We are not dealing with facts and not when we are dealing with questions of belief, we are not considering everything is true and false.

Most believers swear that they have knowledge and evidence, and can prove that their God(s) exists. Are you saying that you DON'T KNOW if your Messenger or your God(s) really exists? If so, then this is only what you believe to be true? But if you claim that you DO KNOW that your Messenger or God exists, then you have the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Once you make the knowledge claim that prayer works, miracles happen, resurrections happen, faith heals, Gods and Demigods exists, death is not the end, NDE and OBE exists, or that any alternate or supernatural reality exists, then you have just inherited the burden of proof.

Is there anything that you DO KNOW, that relates directly to anything that you have claimed? If you are only talking about your belief, then there is no truth, falsehood, or certainty involved at all. Your belief can be anything you want it to be, but your facts/evidence can't. Once you have evidence for your belief, there is not need for belief anymore. It now becomes a fact.

 

[joelr]

Show me the ape/human common ancestor. After that can you please demonstrate how all sexual reproduction is from asexual reproduction which means change in compatable body parts both males and females across a wide variety of creatures at about the same time. All via the laws of physics and chemistry alone? Sounds like blind faith to me, so tell me where am i wrong?

That "show me the common ancestor" was a popular dig on evolution going around church groups in the 1950's-60's. Back then the fossil records were much different.
By the 1990s we have dozens of species in our line, H. Heidelbergensis, right before H Sapien but many many going back in time in the Homo line.

Sexual reproduction started with cellular life. Organisms that were dividing into 2 to reproduce were not creating enough variety to meet the changing needs of life in the sea. Some organisms began splitting up the process which resulted in offspring getting dna from 2 parents which gave it more chances to develop a way to better avoid enemies or get at food easier. Combining dna creates more variety and more chances that one of the offspring will be better suited to life.

 

[atanu]

I did not say ontological naturalism was not logical. Please do not misquote me, and respond again.

No disrespect meant. I am sorry if it came out that way.

You said: I do not consider it not logical to conclude that there is 100% certainty that God(s) do not exist based on the lack of objective verifiable evidence as determined by empirical methods.

I understand that you disagreed.

From my perspective however, to conclude that there is 100% certainty that God(s) do not exist based on the lack of objective verifiable evidence as determined by empirical methods, is not logical.

 

[atanu]

I have to admit that I don't see much difference in the evidence for them. If anything gods are *less* believable because they have more dramatic properties.

I agree there. If one has experience of mAyA power of consciousness, then god or fairy, or demon all may (or may not) be equal, depending on what these are. However, the source of our awareness is one without a second and cannot be compared to any other.

On the other hand, the concept of faith seems, to me, to *encourage* irrationality in beliefs. The whole point is to go beyond what rationality can provide. That is, by definition, irrational. Whether it is *good* or not is another matter.

Again I agree. Vedanta exhorts us to have faith in self as god. Without a minimum amount of faith in sayings of the Vedas, one will even not endeavour to examine the veracity of the Vedic sayings.

 

[shunyadragon]

No disrespect meant. I am sorry if it came out that way.

You said: I do not consider it not logical to conclude that there is 100% certainty that God(s) do not exist based on the lack of objective verifiable evidence as determined by empirical methods.

I understand that you disagreed.

From my perspective however, to conclude that there is 100% certainty that God(s) do not exist based on the lack of objective verifiable evidence as determined by empirical methods, is not logical.

I do not believe this generalizes all atheists. I consider 100% certainty that God exists nor not exists to be illogical, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence.

Many atheists believe there is no 'reason to believe' in God.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I do not believe this generalizes all atheists. I consider 100% certainty that God exists nor not exists to be illogical, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence.

Many atheists believe there is no 'reason to believe' in God.

Watch your wording, it can have a different meaning. Many atheist don't believe that there is no REASON to believe that a God exist, but that there is no EVIDENCE that a God exists. One implies a belief, and the other a position.

 

[David T]

"Atheists aren't not nearly as rational as some think they are." Unquote.
Atheists aren't not nearly as rational as they think they are.

Regards

Well they certainly would vhemently disagree. Of course they rely on the ken hans teleevangelists etc as their proof!!! Religion is filled with real living strawnen whom atheists claim are experts with whom they disagree with!!!!

I suppose based on scientific empericism reasoned mental straw men are not real. But living breathing strawmen are valid!!!!!! At least according to atheisn!!!!!



I have to think my strawman analogy over i like it!!!!