Regardless of who wrote it, I consider the argument weak and anecdotal concerning the relative nature of how a belief system con be rational and to what degree with a comparison with how rational other possible choices
Last edited:
-
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!
Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.
- Thread starter David T
- Start date
Regardless of who wrote it, I consider the argument weak and anecdotal concerning the relative nature of how a belief system con be rational and to what degree with a comparison with how rational other possible choices
dimmesdale
Member
There are no uncaused effects at the macro level. If your bank account goes down to a negative 200 then it cannot be reasonably chalked up to an uncaused effect. There was a cause or causes. It would be irrational to assert an uncaused event and no need to look for a thing not there.
The depiction is extrinsic, not before.
No. God depicted is uncreated. Infinite.
Now you are into Theology. Again we do not need to know anything about the First Cause to rule out uncaused. Given the options on the table, the most rational is caused and for a purpose. We are here for a purpose.
No it is based on evidence which was the effects stated.
Not for the cause of the universe and life absent a living source. It is ad hoc and based on a paradigm which rules out certain answers from the get-go. The Davies mandate, for example. ''Science takes as its starting point the assumption that life wasn’t made by a god or a supernatural being.” That will not do when it comes to life here and the start of the universe. Under yours the Davies mandate (Atheistic protocol) dictates the interpretation of the evidence. There is no biological or chemical basis in the present to extrapolate a sole nonliving first cause for life here. Triangles, squares, math equations and truth all exist extrinsic of time-space and matter including the laws of physics. Discovered, not invented. They are abstract realities in no way dependent on our understanding. The laws of physics do not govern the abstract existence of a triangle. It takes a mind to discover them, and they come from a mind. There is no rational reason to assume these would exist outside a mind. They are fingerprints of a mind.
It is required in real science. You have to test in the present. That is how they do real science.
There is evidence not restricted to the laws of physics in the form of testimony including time spent and spoken word of the Deity. The intervention of the Deity into the affairs of men.
Myth is opinion and opinion does not equal fact.
Including written. It is evidence.
Strawman. Certainly, i am not denying Genesis. Jesus did not so why should i?
Genesis depicts God as extrinsic and the first cause of both the universe and life here. It is more than reasonable given your fixed alternative including your artificial restrictions.
None of it means they were wrong. Again, myth is opinion, not fact.
The testimony is multiple compiled. Besides, it depends on the circumstances. If we witness someone we know doing something then that is more reliable then observing someone we do not know in a car we never saw. Your whole model is based on no God from the get-go for the universe and life when everybody knows God cannot be ruled out based on atheistic convictions and nothing more. God is a viable candidate when it comes to these questions including the meaning of life. Things we intuitively know about. Your model and its logical consequences comes up short. It fails. Life has meaning objectively and we are here for a purpose.
Well most would not forget face to face with God.
That happens fast and different people would have different vantage points. It does not mean contradictory.
The physical evidence is in the effects and the laws which regulate things. You are free to believe everything is from nothing but it is rational suicide given all we know. The reason we are here is God. Absent God we would not be here. It has the most explanatory power.
Last edited:
Sort of true, the cause and effect outcomes in the macro world are dependent on the Quantum World, which based on the evidence has no cause other than the Quantum World itself.
Also depicted as eternal. This is a Theistic assumption and not convincing beyond this.
Rational? No, based on theistic assumption, and circular logic. I will take issue with this Theist assertion without objective evidence to back it up. You are not considering the possible options. Based on the Objective verifiable evidence a purpose and first cause is not necessary.
Absolutely false. I am a scientist of over fifty years, and a theist, and science makes no such assumptions,
There is no objective verifiable evidence that supports this,
[/quote]
Myth is opinion and opinion does not equal fact. Including written. It is evidence. Strawman. Certainly, i am not denying Genesis. Jesus did not so why should i?
Genesis depicts God as extrinsic and the first cause of both the universe and life here. None of it means they were wrong. [/quote]
There is simply no objective verifiable evidence that it should be accepted beyond a matter of the belief that it is true,
How are you defining 'nothing' here? Scientists do not believe everything is from absolutely nothing.
Then again, randomness is known to science from quantum mechanics. Though I agree that creation from a true nothing ─ no energy, no dimensions, nothing of any kind or description at all ─ would likewise have nothing to be random. I therefore favor the hypothesis that the dimensions are a quality of mass-energy, hence that spacetime exists because energy does, and not vice versa.
Why would it need any quality that might be called 'rational' or 'a mind'? The existence of such a prior mind would imply a pre-existing physics within which that 'rational mind' had arisen and evolved, giving an infinite regression, no?
Subjectivity is built into human perspectives indeed. But science, unlike religion, encourages objectivity and seeks to maximize it.
The trouble is that there is no coherent concept of a real god, a god which exists in the same way that your cat or your dentist's bill or the Andromeda galaxy exist. And if God doesn't have objective existence then the only way [he] can exist is as something imagined ─ which explains why there are so many versions of [him]. There may well be some force to the idea that sharing common stories is good for tribal bonding, too ie serves an evolutionary purpose.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Non-theists are more rational.
One thing it seems religious people forget when discussing the god/no-god arguments is that proof of a god /creator is not related to any religion in any way.
Even if one decides the universe had a creator there is still another science that is often forgotten about, a soft science, history.
With Christianity currently the historicity field supports historicity but not divinity and the latest Phd work supports mythicism.
Either way with the exception of fundamentalist scholars no one supports divinity.
So believing is a faith based activity. You can't go against science and still call it rational. Isn't that the point of faith though? You believe even though it appears it's not true?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I think atheists in general would agree that not all atheists are rational, and some are not rational about all things. That's not news. Reason is certainly superior to any religion that does not depend on reason for it's justification.
Refute the point then.
It is very much relevant. Let me reproduce what I wrote elsewhere.
This is monty python life of brian meets douglas adams in debate. Entertainment not rational!!!! Dang i travel For a few days i end up with 18 replies to thus thread!!!
Last i checked the sun rises and sets indepenfent if us homo sapiens. Although niel bohrs would disagree.
Like music eh!!!!
We need an objective scientific study of science.
Well finally something interesting.. Please explain. Although i might say fiction is very natural!!!
We arent here for "rational" reasons. I understand arheism as reacrionary to religion. If i was slightly didferent say normal i would be an atheist. It actually only exists in that context..i find it interesting if i tell a "believer" i dont beliece in god. There brain defaults to atheist. Wrong answer.
I didnt say religion was reasonable. If i say i was abducted by aliens you might reasonably conclude nutty!!!
Is abduction stories being nutty a valid proof as the topic of life on other planets is nutty!? Thats what arheism hold to., hwy look this is nutty the topic is invalid. Thats nonsense.
I can believe in big foot and that is at times more rarional than religion!!!! Oh trust me sun i have no defense for religious bs. I have a theology degree. That degree Is absolute bs in application to the bible but a great psych tool of the develipment of the intellect over 2,000 years. Thats why i have retreated to music and art.
Finally a poets voice.
I find it interesting that poetry speaks with such clarity and yet is so opaque for so many!! !!!
Yes seems desperate to be an atheist i totally agree!!!! Being someone who doesnt believe in god i find atheism absurd!!! Oh wait, let me paraphrase, as simeone who finds alien avductions as being nutty, i dont let people determine for me who make such claims as athoritative of life on other planets.Gratification of the ego? It would be like being gratified by showing that black cats crossing roads is uncorrelated with future bad things happening. Or that homeopathy is nonsense. These are such obvious things that it would be a quite small ego to be gratified, indeed.
No, we are here to help, mainly.
Ciao
- viole
A topic can be both true and made obscure and confusing buy nuttiess thats a fact. Why is religion ypur expert on the topic?
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.
'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.
Atheism is not a belief system and that's where it all falls down.