To the Anti-Religious

[Vile Atheist]

The atheist is making claims. The atheist says either (a) there is no God

No. The atheist says it's irrational to believe in God. Some atheists do make the claim that God definitely does not exist. And as such they themselves are required to fulfill their burden of proof.

or (b) it is irrational/unwarranted to hold a belief in God (otherwise why be an atheist rather than some sort of theist?).

That is factual. It is irrational to hold a belief in God because there is no evidence to suggest God exists. If you have any, I'd love to hear it.

Those are claims, very substantial ones, about the way the world is

(a) is by and large a strawman and (b) is a fact.

Indeed, if true, they are extremely important ones. If there is a dispute about them, an argument is in order.

Yes, present your evidence for your extraordinary claim and then we'll talk about it.

 

[Sententia]

Some make claims sure. A lot of us do, but I say again that being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you're making a claim. Even as an atheist I would not make an objective claim that a belief in god is irrational. I might "think" that it is, but I would never claim that is objectively so or that I know it to be so, because for all I know they could be correct. Is that considered a claim? I have no way of proving that it is irrational because I cannot die and check to see if there's an afterlife, then come back.

You're basically saying that we should be held to a burden of proof for things where it's impossible to get proof. The only argument we can and DO present are natural explanations for phenomena and the fact that we haven't found any observable evidence for a god or to support the idea that the laws of nature/physics can be and have been broken. There's nothing we can do beyond that.

Correct. Most god claims are by definition supernatural. An atheist will take a claim attributed to the supernatural and usually weigh the options... Sure... Its possible some supernatural explanation is correct but based on the evidence and facts we have it is more likely there is a natural explanation.

Most of the arguments occur when a supernatural believer contests that the natural explanation provided is not feasible. An atheist will naturally concede that perhaps THIS natural explanation is not the actual answer but SOME natural explanation must explain the situation completely with no reliance on the supernatural.

So here you see an atheist conceding and exploring or searching for an actual explanation contrasted with the typical theist belief which discounts ALL possible explanation even ones they are currently unaware of in favor of one supernatural explanation that can be logically proven but rests firmly on superstition and bias and is completely outside the realm of reason.

Then they assume these preconditions and exempt them from reason or logic but then attempt to use reason or logic based on the assumption which is inherently illogical. (Seriously its enough to give spock a stroke.)

There are numerous supernatural explanations. Lycans and Vampires controlling our world through some secret society having uncovered the keys to immortality. The infamous Jesus Zombie. Ra, Odin, Zeus and numerous others now completely dead and gone holes in human reason.

But Jesus faith is gonna be the faith that lives on... Which is probably what the Ra zealots said or Zeus parishioners or what? Jesus is a 2k year old myth and thats being generous since the majority of the story wasnt fully developed until decades, (If not centuries) after said God turned Human turned Zombie Turned God was around?

Sigh... I should stop ranting. I pay Jesus myths little mind as I am an observer or history. History has taught me that in the brief time the jesus myth has existed it has been atleast as bad as the brief time other supernatural beliefs have existed. It offers no solutions. It offers no moral guidance. It purports to offer moral guidance... but have you read the bible? How long have humans been around and how long has crazy god beliefs been around? They come and go like droughts in a farm land of reason.

I remember when the religious folks recently tried to reason with us atheists with normal logic and reason via intelligent design. How did that work out?

Humans are the image of god yet most of their DNA is junk.... Useless and unneeded to reproduce..... But surely our DNA is wondrous and massive the most elegant and perfect god like instruction set... But others... say the onion which has 5 times as much data.... hmmmm... perhaps god is an onion?

Honestly most of the time its selfish rationalization. You were taught A is good so if B suggests A might not be good the obviously B is evil and untrue and the work of demons.... Which may be true if you can prove A which no one is interested or capable of doing. A was Acolmiztli, Zeus, Omacatl, Votan, Choc and Loki.... Now A is Jesus or Allah or what have you...

Look... Many people have attempted the journey to explore what actually is and what explains the natural... The supernatural is myth... ghosts, demons, gods, angels, dissappearing gold plates, talking horses, burning plants etc etc is all bunk.... Its makes a good story... But its mythology.

fake.

bunk.

People flew planes into our towers to get their virgins because of this bunk.

Tiller the baby killer was assassinated in church cause his assassin was serving god and his will...

Its powerful fiction you can base your life on... For better and sometimes for worse but to declare faith in the unproven as always a force for good is ignorant. It could be... but often its not with cataclysmic outcomes.

 

[PureX]

No. The atheist says it's irrational to believe in God.

The atheist is clearly wrong on this point. Even if "God" doesn't exist, it can be shown to be a rational decision to believe in a deity. Not ALL concepts of "God" are rational, however.

It is irrational to hold a belief in God because there is no evidence to suggest God exists. If you have any, I'd love to hear it.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that God exists. There is no proof, however. Most atheists dismiss any evidence that conflicts with their own position because they demand that it attain the level of absolute proof. Yet they admit that they have no proof of their own to offer, either. It's a "stacked deck" discussion and therefor a waste of time discussing it.

Yes, present your evidence for your extraordinary claim and then we'll talk about it.

That would require opening another thread.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Hey, PureX, ever wonder why you can't ever bring actual proof to the table? Also, the reason we ignore your so called evidence for the existence of your god is usually because what you guys call evidence can be explained without a god. Oh, look at the trees aren't they beautiful? God did it! Or, maybe it can be explained naturally. Which makes a whole lot more sense. And it is not rational to believe in something without evidence. Period. Don't try to point out that i have irrational beliefs, everyone does, but most of those can be categorized as miniscule and pointless. But believing in an invisible diety that you cannot, and haven't even come close to proving, that's really irrational. You see, there is common day irrationality, and then there is willfully choosing to believe in things for which there is no proof whatsoever, like believing in a god.

 

[Smoke]

In other words, Christians claim to have a source of warrant for their beliefs that others either don't have or don't avail themselves of.

But so far they haven't come up with any evidence for it, or shown any rational reason for believing that they have it. So it's still irrational.

Something may be worthwhile without being rational. Our love for spouse, children, parents and friends is rarely entirely rational, for instance. I don't see problem with people being Christians for irrational reasons. It's just a shame that you can't feel like a sincere Christian unless you can convince yourself that certain irrational beliefs are true.

I love my husband and I appreciate all his wonderful qualities. Nothing irrational about that. But if I sincerely believe that he is the smartest, best looking, most compassionate, most fun, most talented, most athletic man in the world, that's clearly irrational. If I further believe that everybody else would believe it too if only they were able to respond to the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit, and also that my belief about this is rational, that's completely irrational. It's so irrational that the word delusion doesn't seem to cover it.

 

[Commoner]

The atheist is clearly wrong on this point. Even if "God" doesn't exist, it can be shown to be a rational decision to believe in a deity.

Yes, I agree. It is not necessarily "being irrational" for a theist to believe in god.

The same could be said of a schizofrenic who sees me as a possesed demonic half-pig half-devil and tries to chop my head off. It might not be a bad idea to chop a demonic half-pig half-devil's head off.

That does not mean he's right, it does not mean it's a good idea not to convince him to abandon his "rational" beliefs and it does not mean it's a good idea to encourage him to act in accordance with his "rational" beliefs.

 

[Azakel]

Hey, PureX, ever wonder why you can't ever bring actual proof to the table? Also, the reason we ignore your so called evidence for the existence of your god is usually because what you guys call evidence can be explained without a god. Oh, look at the trees aren't they beautiful? God did it! Or, maybe it can be explained naturally. Which makes a whole lot more sense. And it is not rational to believe in something without evidence. Period. Don't try to point out that i have irrational beliefs, everyone does, but most of those can be categorized as miniscule and pointless. But believing in an invisible diety that you cannot, and haven't even come close to proving, that's really irrational. You see, there is common day irrationality, and then there is willfully choosing to believe in things for which there is no proof whatsoever, like believing in a god.

It seem you don't understand what PureX is getting at or even what he believe. It seem that you just like making insults. But that's nothing new with you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It seem you don't understand what PureX is getting at or even what he believe.

To be fair, even PureX doesn't seem to understand what he's getting at or even what he believes.

 

[Azakel]

To be fair, even PureX doesn't seem to understand what he's getting at or even what he believes.

Maybe, he's views are confusing(I know I don't understand them). But still, there's no need for the insults really.

 

[PureX]

Hey, PureX, ever wonder why you can't ever bring actual proof to the table?

Who is deciding, here, what is "actual" proof? You?

Also, the reason we ignore your so called evidence for the existence of your god is usually because what you guys call evidence can be explained without a god.

Maybe, but that doesn't stand as evidence against the existence of God. So what's the point?

Oh, look at the trees aren't they beautiful? God did it! Or, maybe it can be explained naturally.

Or maybe God did it through the natural process.

And it is not rational to believe in something without evidence. Period.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God.

Don't try to point out that i have irrational beliefs, everyone does, but most of those can be categorized as miniscule and pointless. But believing in an invisible diety that you cannot, and haven't even come close to proving, that's really irrational. You see, there is common day irrationality, and then there is willfully choosing to believe in things for which there is no proof whatsoever, like believing in a god.

So you figure that common everyday irrationality is OK but theological irrationality is not OK because it's "really irrational"?

That's pretty irrational.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I agree. It is not necessarily "being irrational" for a theist to believe in god.

The same could be said of a schizofrenic who sees me as a possesed demonic half-pig half-devil and tries to chop my head off. It might not be a bad idea to chop a demonic half-pig half-devil's head off.

That does not mean he's right, it does not mean it's a good idea not to convince him to abandon his "rational" beliefs and it does not mean it's a good idea to encourage him to act in accordance with his "rational" beliefs.

But in the case of the theist, it doesn't mean he's wrong, either. And he is not threatening to cut anyone's head off (usually). And besides that, he very often can attain a positive result for himself and others through his belief in God.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It seem you don't understand what PureX is getting at or even what he believe. It seem that you just like making insults. But that's nothing new with you.

If you post something and it is clear your readers aren’t “getting it” then you need to rework your post. Either that or change your audience.
Most theists prefer the latter to the former. As evidenced by the existence of DIR forums.

But if you chose NOT to seek refuge there and post in an open forum instead then you assume the burden of at least being clear WHAT you believe and why. Failing that you are just not a very good writer and/or not convincing and/or not even interesting.

The recent posts to which you refer are examples of ALL three.

 

[Commoner]

But in the case of the theist, it doesn't mean he's wrong, either.

Care to back that up?

And he is not threatening to cut anyone's head off (usually).

Of course not, but you do choose to chop off certain other parts of the body, not unrelated to "heads". Why is that again?

And besides that, he very often can attain a positive result for himself and others through his belief in God.

Even if you're wrong, you can often attain a positive result, so what? A schizofrenic can see a black hole in the middle of the staircase and avoid stepping on a loose plank.

 

[PureX]

If you post something and it is clear your readers aren’t “getting it” then you need to rework your post. Either that or change your audience.
Most theists prefer the latter to the former. As evidenced by the existence of DIR forums.

But if you chose NOT to seek refuge there and post in an open forum instead then you assume the burden of at least being clear WHAT you believe and why. Failing that you are just not a very good writer and/or not convincing and/or not even interesting.

The recent posts to which you refer are examples of ALL three.

What exactly is it that's confusing you? I'll be glad to clear it up if you can take the time to be specific, instead of just posting blind insults.

 

[PureX]

Care to back that up?

Back what up. Post the actual issue, please, if you have one on your mind.

Of course not, but you do choose to chop off certain other parts of the body, not unrelated to "heads". Why is that again?

You are apparently referring to a religious ritual. I am not religious, and do not defend religious rituals, except to the degree that free people have the right to do them as long as they are not harming anyone else.

Even if you're wrong, you can often attain a positive result, so what? A schizofrenic can see a black hole in the middle of the staircase and avoid stepping on a loose plank.

So which is more important to you, being right, or achieving a positive result?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

But in the case of the theist, it doesn't mean he's wrong, either. And he is not threatening to cut anyone's head off (usually). And besides that, he very often can attain a positive result for himself and others through his belief in God.

Really? Quite a striking claim. :cover:

Can you provide an example of this "positive result" that could NOT have obtained w/o believe in a god. Any example by any god will do. Just a tangible, verifiable, demonstrable "positive result" that REQUIRES the belief in your - or anybody else's - invisible fairy god-father.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Even if "God" doesn't exist, it can be shown to be a rational decision to believe in a deity. Not ALL concepts of "God" are rational, however."

Please compare and contrast the rational concepts of god with the irrational ones.

 

[Commoner]

Back what up. Post the actual issue, please, if you have one on your mind.

You have your beliefs in god, you can say they are rational. But when you say you are right (or that "the theist is not wrong"), you should also present some evidence. Until then, I will not believe there is a black hole in the ground or that I am a demonic half-pig half-devil. I don't care which "god" you choose to represent, so I will not give you a specific one. You can choose your own.

You are apparently referring to a religious ritual. I am not religious, and do not defend religious rituals, except to the degree that free people have the right to do them as long as they are not harming anyone else.

Well, the people doing it don't believe it's harmful. In fact, quite the opposite. The problem is what the basis of that beliefs are.

So which is more important to you, being right, or achieving a positive result?

Acting in a way that is most likely to achieve a positive result. Even the best intentions and the best laid plans can go horribly wrong. And even wars usually end with a lesson learned. What's your point?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So which is more important to you, being right, or achieving a positive result?

(Psst - they're not mutually exclusive.)

 

[Commoner]

You are apparently referring to a religious ritual. I am not religious, and do not defend religious rituals, except to the degree that free people have the right to do them as long as they are not harming anyone else.

I think that's a bit of a rationalization. You might not follow any of the established religions, but I would imagine you have your own "religion", don't you? That there are some things you do only because of your belief in god? It only means you make your own rules, your own rituals, how is that any different?