Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[David T]

Yes, I like music, gardening, fishing, camping, traveling, and perhaps a few things that should not be discussed here. LOL

Indeed.. But then we could debate the various genres of music, the varieties of fishing, of proper camping, the right places to travel, which then lead to a variety of believers vs non belivers arguing their points.

So based on that a quote norman mclean.

"In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing. We lived at the junction of great trout rivers in western Montana, and our father was a Presbyterian minister and a fly fisherman who tied his own flies and taught others. He told us about Christ's disciples being fishermen, and we were left to assume, as my brother and I did, that all first-class fishermen on the Sea of Galilee were fly fishermen and that John, the favorite, was a dry-fly fisherman"

 

[David T]

Would you please rephrase this so that it fulfills some minimal requirements of coherence?

Ciao

- viole

I dont go to astrologers to understand cosmolgy. I find atheism rather dependent on sooth sayers as their personal experts on the topic god to disagree with. It lacks any coherent realty outside religion itaelf.

 

[David T]

Are you suggesting that any person whose position is based only the lack of evidence that supports the existence of any God, and participates in religious forums, are NOT RATIONAL? There are some religious forums that do prohibit Atheist attending their forums, under the guise of protecting its members and their religious agenda. From what perspective are you deciding what is rational? Yours? Or, are you just trying to shame Atheists to leave?

Atheist contribute to religious forums for social, humanitarian, and personal reasons. They may want to provide many people with the answers to natural phenomena, that don't include, "God did it". They might want to provide encouragement for early indoctrinated minds, to begin the journey of regaining their lost innocents, creativity, and their natural curiosity. Maybe they just feel that if 2 1/2 Billion people think that the king IS wearing clothes, then maybe they just need special glasses to see it. Maybe they're just hoping to find just one proven miracle, one supernatural event, or just one piece of evidence that a God truly does exist. Once evidence is produced, their position will disappear. Maybe they just want to confront all the mischaracterizations, lies, and misrepresentations of all Atheists and Atheism. The kind that many believers enjoy depositing. Atheist will usually restrict themselves to non-religious topics, science related topics, or topics in which Atheism is the subject. Very few are involved in Biblical interpretations, sermonizing, Comparative Religions, or Biblical storytelling. Therefore there are hundreds of other threads you can attend, without any Atheists involved.

For some atheist there maybe some ego gratification, knowing that proof of the existence of a God is unknowable and unfalsifiable. But then the converse is also true among believers. There may be ego gratification knowing that proof of the NON-existence of a God is also unknowable and unfalsifiable as well. For me, I do not live in a world of NON-existence. I live in a world where things exist or they don't.

Oh believers and non believers are a doppleganger of each other without realizing they do not make up the totality just the majority is all. Poor crearures we call them normals.

.

 

[David T]

Nice, but not a meaningful response, as usual.

@Mock Turtle got it right concerning the meaningless of this article.

Of course not you are a, reductionist and if it isnt determined by your cranium it doesnt exist. You have a very normal newtonian mind. As usual. Smart but so what irelevant as usual

 

[David T]

'Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think'

Meaningless statement sets the tone of the article - like 5%?, 20%?, 90%?, etc. - 'some' encompasses what ever one wants to see in such things.

From the article:

When you ask atheists about why they became atheists (as I do for a living), they often point to eureka moments when they came to realise that religion simply doesn't make sense.

Perhaps 'some' atheists. For myself, it was mostly a hunch as a child (too many religions with conflicting beliefs), and later, just not making sense in the grand scheme of things - evidence not exactly conclusive, testable, or even capable of being verifiable. Atheists are just as likely to be irrational as the religious believers - but perhaps they at least recognise this fact.

Even older children and adolescents who actually ponder the topic of religion may not be approaching it as independently as they think. Emerging research is demonstrating that atheist parents (and others) pass on their beliefs to their children in a similar way to religious parents – through sharing their culture as much as their arguments.

Sounds like a defence for carrying on as usual in indoctrinating children with the beliefs of the parents rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. And it is all down to the default position really - what we see around us over what we propose as being reality (God did it - and my particular religious belief explains it all nicely - rather than some other religious belief - but we can ignore them of course because I am right and they are wrong).

Some parents take the view that their children should choose their beliefs for themselves, but what they then do is pass on certain ways of thinking about religion, like the idea that religion is a matter of choice rather than divine truth. It's not surprising that almost all of these children – 95% – end up "choosing" to be atheist.

I suppose because 'divine truth' is a little 'up in the air' and, as we know, not exactly a clearly defined concept - hence all the differences and on-going conflicts between religions. Why wouldn't a parent want to provide as much choice for their children?

Clearly, the idea that being atheist is down to rationality alone is starting to look distinctly irrational.

I bet they all get no sleep over that.

It is helpful that we have invented something that, unlike our minds, is rational and evidence-based: science.

Balances out religion nicely then.

Any of the non-religious who come to such forums as this at least can't be accused of mostly reinforcing their existing beliefs, unlike many of the religious, who often will restrict themselves to forums excluded from the nons. And since we have about 85% of the population having some form of religious belief, and where it obviously impacts on the rest of us, I would say we have every right to be concerned and to get involved. Speaks more of courage to me than anything else - certainly not gratification of the ego. I get little of that, I can assure you, since I don't value my thinking that highly.

I have zero idea what goes on in believers brains and non believers brains. I do know they are identical dopplegangers. I tried it once what a wierd way of seeing but normal

Interesting you figured"out religion. Funny i know factually they dont have it figured out.

 

[David T]

That would depend on the evidence.
That too would depend on the evidence.
You're mistaken. As a generalization, atheism does not make its arguments on unfounded claims that theism is nonsense. It doesn't have to when theists themselves can't agree what they're talking about. And I mention yet again the absence in theism of any coherent concept of a real god, one that isn't just imaginary ─ as far as I know, theism has no way of distinguishing a real god from a knitting needle.

If you disagree, please tell me what objective test will tell us whether any real entity is a god or not. (Then we can turn to the secondary question, which god, exactly?) I'd be genuinely delighted to know.

Is nature objective unto itself objective or is it subject subjective? And to what is it subject subjective to exacty if you state it is?

Because at the end of the day blu good rare sciencists have one view, and the vast majority of the rest of scientists have another view.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course not you are a, reductionist and if it isnt determined by your cranium it doesnt exist. You have a very normal newtonian mind. As usual. Smart but so what irelevant as usual

I am not Newtonian, and I believe in God even he does not fit a reductionist mind, and I believe Quantum Mechanics is the foundation of our physical existence and not Newtonian physics. The spiritual dementions of the mind go far beyond the nature of our physical reality.

Actually reductionism works ok in our physical existence including Quantum Mechanics, but that is not all there is..

Your meaningless generalizations and stereotyping others do not present a coherent dialogue,

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Oh believers and non believers are a doppleganger of each other without realizing they do not make up the totality just the majority is all. Poor crearures we call them normals.

.

I understand that is truly possible to say so little, to so many, and still say nothing at all. Is there a word for this? Poor creatures.

 

[blü 2]

Is nature objective unto itself objective

The distinction between subjective and objective is a judgment made by your brain, so in that sense it's subjective. However, if you've trained your brain to maximize objectivity you'll find you manage quite well.

Because ... good rare sciencists have one view, and the vast majority of the rest of scientists have another view.

Perhaps you'd like to provide a nice clear example of what you mean.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have zero idea what goes on in believers brains and non believers brains. I do know they are identical dopplegangers. I tried it once what a wierd way of seeing but normal

Interesting you figured"out religion. Funny i know factually they dont have it figured out.

No more than anyone else, but the effects of having such beliefs is hardly something one can put aside or ignore, so why wouldn't those of us without such be interested in the mentalities and causes for so many believing in something hardly demonstrable. Perhaps your degree in theology hindered your ability to be open-minded?

 

[dimmesdale]

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.

You don't need 100% certainty. Preponderance of the evidence is 50.5%. Beyond a reasonable doubt is much higher. If it is 100% then it is much closer to all possible doubt which is impossible. Everything is evidence of something else. A suit (objectively verifiable) is evidence of a tailor and you are evidence of your parents and grandparents etc. None of this contingent on 100% certainty.

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

Well my atheist friend hooked up with a Catholic female and showed up at the restaurant with ashes on his forehead on the eve of ash Wednesday. The ashes were evidence, not 100% mind you, of church attendance. So while he does not believe in God, he still goes to church, because of his girlfriend.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't need 100% certainty. Preponderance of the evidence is 50.5%. Beyond a reasonable doubt is much higher. If it is 100% then it is much closer to all possible doubt which is impossible. Everything is evidence of something else. A suit (objectively verifiable) is evidence of a tailor and you are evidence of your parents and grandparents etc. None of this contingent on 100% certainty.

Fair enough. One aspect I have difficulty with is figuring out what the claim 'God exists' really means. What are the defining characteristics of this things labeled 'God'?

What I can say is that every concept of God I have seen (except for pantheism--identifying God with existence) leads to something I am over 99% sure doens't exist.

Well my atheist friend hooked up with a Catholic female and showed up at the restaurant with ashes on his forehead on the eve of ash Wednesday. The ashes were evidence, not 100% mind you, of church attendance. So while he does not believe in God, he still goes to church, because of his girlfriend.

OK.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

You also refused to even engage with the question of whether the certainty that God exists is higher that the certainty that fairies exist.

Merely not being able to conclusively prove that God doesn't exist is a pretty poor foundation to build a whole religion on.

 

[shunyadragon]

You also refused to even engage with the question of whether the certainty that God exists is higher that the certainty that fairies exist.

Not my problem. You brought up fairies deal with it. There is no absolute certainty of anything beyond our physical existence.

Merely not being able to conclusively prove that God doesn't exist is a pretty poor foundation to build a whole religion on.

It is a fact of the limits of human logic, reasoning and ability to comprehend anything past the objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence.

 

[dimmesdale]

You also refused to even engage with the question of whether the certainty that God exists is higher that the certainty that fairies exist.

How bout the certainty that ape/human common ancestor existed with the certainty that fairies exist? Or is it do as you say and not as you do?

Merely not being able to conclusively prove that God doesn't exist is a pretty poor foundation to build a whole religion on.

It is called falsification and it does not necessarily have to be conclusive. Nobody builds religion on not being able to disprove God. If they find the Starship Enterprise on the moon complete with dummy instruction manuals, then they can reasonably falsify natural processes exclusive to the moon as the primal cause. They would reasonably go with extrinsic intelligence of some sort and for a purpose.

 

[shunyadragon]

You don't need 100% certainty.

As fallible humans you won't get it.

Preponderance of the evidence is 50.5%.

You won't get that either.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is much higher. If it is 100% then it is much closer to all possible doubt which is impossible. Everything is evidence of something else. A suit (objectively verifiable) is evidence of a tailor and you are evidence of your parents and grandparents etc. None of this contingent on 100% certainty.

Need a better more coherent response.

Well my atheist friend hooked up with a Catholic female and showed up at the restaurant with ashes on his forehead on the eve of ash Wednesday. The ashes were evidence, not 100% mind you, of church attendance. So while he does not believe in God, he still goes to church, because of his girlfriend.

Common where sense of community and belonging determines ones faith, and a terrible pragmatic reason to believe. My belief carries a higher price.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not my problem. You brought up fairies deal with it. There is no absolute certainty of anything beyond our physical existence.

I'm not talking about absolute certainty; I'm talking about relative certainty. And if you don't like fairies, the question works just as well with anything whose existence you effectively disregard without deciding that it's necessarily impossible.

Heck - even consider the actually possible: I assume that you agree that lions are real and that animals sometimes escape from zoos, right? I'd also bet dollars to donuts that you make no special allowances for the definitely non-zero (low, but non-zero) possibility that you might be attacked by a lion that escaped from the zoo, right?

To rationally justify more regard for God than we give to the risk of lion attacks, we need something... some piece of evidence that can be used to rationally draw the conclusion that God is a reasonable proposition.

It is a fact of the limits of human logic, reasoning and ability to comprehend anything past the objective verifiable evidence of our physical existence.

People who actially recognize that the limits of human knowledge prevent them from having good reason to believe that gods exist don't join religions devoted to a god. (Edit: not for reasons of faith, anyhow. I realize that there are lots of reasons an atheist could be pressured into feigning religiosity and stay closeted)

People who actually think that the existence of gods is something where the evidence doesn't allow a reasonable position consider gods to be nothing more than an intellectual curiosity.

And one implication of saying that there's no evidence for the existence of God is that God, if he exists, is indistinguishable in every measurable and observable way from a god that doesn't exist. This isn't the God of any religion I've ever heard of.

 

[dimmesdale]

Need a better more coherent response.

Beyond possible doubt is an impossible standard to meet since anything is at least possible. So i don't know what you do not understand.

Common where sense of community and belonging determines ones faith,

To a degree.

and a terrible pragmatic reason to believe. My belief carries a higher price.

Well it is not all that hard to figure out. He went to church with his girlfriend because it made her happy. It was probably no big deal to him. She was important to him. He loved her. Virtue signaling is not virtuous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How bout the certainty that ape/human common ancestor existed with the certainty that fairies exist? Or is it do as you say and not as you do?

Common ancestry is demonstrated to a high degree of certainty using multiple independent lines of evidence.

It is called falsification and it does not necessarily have to be conclusive. Nobody builds religion on not being able to disprove God.

That's my point: when anyone who has devoted their lives to a god claims that all they have is "you can't prove he doesn't exist!" I conclude that they're either being dishonest or have major issues interfering with their ability for rational thought.

If they find the Starship Enterprise on the moon complete with dummy instruction manuals, then they can reasonably falsify natural processes exclusive to the moon as the primal cause. They would reasonably go with extrinsic intelligence of some sort and for a purpose.

Of course, you realize that this hasn't happened.

 

[dimmesdale]

Common ancestry is demonstrated to a high degree of certainty using multiple independent lines of evidence.

That is a faith argument. It is double standards. The reality being you do not believe in God because of will, not evidence or rationality.

That's my point: when anyone who has devoted their lives to a god claims that all they have is "you can't prove he doesn't exist!" I conclude that they're either being dishonest or have major issues interfering with their ability for rational thought.

Well that is a self serving conclusion.

Of course, you realize that this hasn't happened.

Intelligent causation as opposed to exclusive non intelligent causes? If as Dawkins says,

''Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.''

It begs the question. If it appears designed and for a purpose then how do they know it was not designed and for a purpose?