Atheism is irrational

[joecap]

Sheesh!
My eyes are glazing over just reading all this philosophical scientific stuff!
Let’s make is simple.

Look at your body. Seriously think about it.
If you believe something that complex, wonderful, beautiful and perfect can come to exist on its own (regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not) then no way will anyone convince you there is a God.

For me, there is no doubt.
Could the space shuttle come into existence on its own?

Now, as to who created God, come on. God probably looks at all this debate with the same sort of amusement we would get watching an ant try to figure out why the pebble gets wet if it falls into water.

Believe in the Resurection, imitate Christ, and be happy. All will be known when you face Him. Can you imagine what it would be like to actually “See Him as He is”? I sure can’t. I wouldn’t even WANT to with my human body. Our psychie wouldn’t stand up to it. We can’t understand. Just know He is there.

We will “Be as HE is”! That excites me! Then we will know.
The problem is, you are trying to understand something that you cannot. That’s what makes God so great!

 

[BlazingBolt]

This is the best it can be, and there is no other solution. Even if a perfect god did create the universe, it would be the best possible with no alternatives because a perfect god would not have an imperfect creation.

This is wrong according to the Church and regardless makes a silly assumption with no evidence. In his infinite power and wisdom God could have always created something better. Especially looking at creation as it is now as we know it, could anyone honestly say it is perfect and could not possibly be better?

Theism is irrational because it has no evidence that God exists and seeks to use faith, belief or philosophical argument as a way of explanation.

This is wrong too. We have divine revelation, whether you believe it or not. We have miracles, whether you believe them or not (explain away the dancing sun at Fatima). Philosophical argument also is not irrational. Believeing in something with out imperical evidence is not irrational such as global warming for instance.

Neither Theism or Atheism is irrational. To call theism irrational is to call Einstein among other’s irrational. It is condescending to label either one as such and people should get off their high horses and stop looking down on each other.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

rivertim

Atheism is rational because it is a position that says that there is no evidence for the existence of God i.e. it is rejecting what is unreasonable.

But this is irrational because you don’t deny the existence of something just because you have no evidence that it exists.

For example, I would not deny the existence of unknown species of life deep in the sea just because I don’t have any evidence they exist. They might exist.

The atheist, if he is truly a rational person, must allow the same possibility … that Someone he cannot see or understand **may **have created the universe.

 

[BlazingBolt]

Well I don’t think an Atheist would claim that it is impossible that God exists. They simply believe he doesn’t exist based on their reason and experience. It is not irrational to deny the existence of faeries of leperchauns based on that their is no evidence they exist. Must a truly rational person admit that faeries and leperchauns MAY exist? Same goes for yetis of chupacabras.

I think there is a difference though that an Atheist thinks God does not exist while a true believer knows that he does through supernatural Faith. An atheist rejects the idea of the supernatural for the most part. For instance I know that I am not simply a buch of chemicals, elements, and electrical impulses while an Atheist might think that that is all I am. I believe I have a supernatural aspect to me while an Atheist thinks I am a piece of meat animated by electrical impulses in my brain or something.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BlazingBolt

Well I don’t think an Atheist would claim that it is impossible that God exists.

On the contrary, the atheist has to think it is impossible for God to exist, since he is convinced God does not exist. If he thought it was possible for God to exist, he would call himself an agnostic, since agnostics believe God may exist but doubt it because the human mind (unaided by faith) is unable to know for sure one way or another.

 

[Mirdath]

Strictly speaking this is correct. For that reason atheism is empty of moral sensibility. Being empty, the atheist is free to create his own moral values … and if they are corrupt values, in his own mind he is ultimately accountable to no one but himself for the choice of those values. If his values are downright evil, no one can reason with him by appealing to the authority of an all just and all merciful God.

More’s the pity.

oh Gilbert, you slay me.

Non-theists are free to create their own moral values, yes, but they are just as free to subscribe to an existing set; and of those that ‘roll their own’, their morality can well (and usually does) have a lot in common with extant moral codes. Lack of belief in God does not turn anyone into Raskolnikov of Crime and Punishment.

People like Raskolnikov are sociopaths, and can be theists just as easily as they can non-theists. You can’t reason with sociopaths, God, Goddess, gods, goddesses or no deity at all – and the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy anyway.

BlazingBolt:

Neither Theism or Atheism is irrational. To call theism irrational is to call Einstein among other’s irrational. It is condescending to label either one as such and people should get off their high horses and stop looking down on each other.

I agree with the sentiment you express wholeheartedly; ‘irrational’ as I was using it refers to the belief that God does or doesn’t exist without evidence either way – faith. I have not been accusing theists or strong atheists of psychological imbalance!

 

[Montalban]

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know if it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.
Lewis, C. S., (2002), “The Complete C S Lewis”, (Harper; San Francisco), p30.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

• …the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy anyway.

No it isn’t. If you are sick, to whom do you go … the doctor (authority on medical matters) or yourself (medical ignoramus)?

Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when the authority to whom you are appealing is not a rightful authority.

For theists, God is certainly a rightful authority on morals.

People like Raskolnikov are sociopaths, and can be theists just as easily as they can non-theists.

I don’t agree and you have offered no evidence of this.

*“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

 

[Montalban]

Mirdath

• …the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy anyway.

No it isn’t. If you are sick, to whom do you go … the doctor (authority on medical matters) or yourself (medical ignoramus)?

My understanding (for those reading these posts) is that an “Appeal to Authority” is only a fallacy when the authority in question has no noted knowledge in the field to which the appeal is being made.

Thus if I cited the Pope’s opinion (as an expert) on the topic of, say, football, that would be a fallacy.

To appeal to a doctor in a medical situation certainly would not be such an “Appeal to Authority”.

 

[BlazingBolt]

BlazingBolt

Well I don’t think an Atheist would claim that it is impossible that God exists.

On the contrary, the atheist has to think it is impossible for God to exist, since he is convinced God does not exist. If he thought it was possible for God to exist, he would call himself an agnostic, since agnostics believe God may exist but doubt it because the human mind (unaided by faith) is unable to know for sure one way or another.

I disagree. The agnostic is not sure if God exists or not and does not take a stance either way. An atheist believes God does not exist but I have not heard an atheist ever say it is impossible that he does. If you have any evidence to refute this please share. All atheists I have heard talk about it, even the most militant and hardcore among them, will argue that the burden of proof is on the theist because he is the one asserting something. Atheist’s are often passionate and convinced of their beliefs, but I do not hear them making assertive arguments attempting to prove that the existence of a supreme being is completely impossible.

Like with a leperchaun, yeti, fairy, or chupacabra; I may scoff at the idea that they exist and think it is foolish to think otherwise but I must admit, however unlikely I think it, that it could somehow be possible. It is impossible to prove they don’t exist and all I can do is state why it is unlikely and maybe argue against what is put forward as positive evidence. But I am not going to assert and try to prove with out a shadow of a doubt that their existence is impossible, how could I possibly do that?

 

[Mirdath]

• …the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy anyway.

No it isn’t. If you are sick, to whom do you go … the doctor (authority on medical matters) or yourself (medical ignoramus)?

Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when the authority to whom you are appealing is not a rightful authority.

For theists, God is certainly a rightful authority on morals.

Montalban got that one. Though actually, the example you presented is half fallacious appeal to authority, half appeal to emotions. Neither makes a rational argument.

Humans have free will. Why, then, call upon someone to answer for his actions to God in an attempt to demonstrate his evil? Won’t God be taking care of all that himself soon enough?

And even theists have some very different ideas of what God’s exact stance on moral questions is. Unless God personally enters the debate, he’s useless as an authority.

I don’t agree and you have offered no evidence of this.

One doesn’t have to profess non-theism to be mentally ill, and to say otherwise is utterly risible. Since I hadn’t been asked to provide evidence for such a common-sense assertion, I omitted that. Here:

David Berkowitz converted in prison; Robert Yates was Christian; Dennis Rader, alias BTK, was a Lutheran. That’s just a few from a single type of sociopath (serial murderers). How about another: Paul Hill, the abortion clinic bomber?

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

I heard that enough in that thread you started (seriously, a little variety in your choice of closing line would be nice), and I still think it’s a serious question to which old Ben didn’t know the answer.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Humans have free will. Why, then, call upon someone to answer for his actions to God in an attempt to demonstrate his evil?

You must stop asking ridiculous questions if you intend to engage me any further. A man who believes in God but is tempted to great evil just **might **think twice if someone pleads with him to consider the fate of his immortal soul. An atheist has no need to think twice because he thinks he has no immortal soul.

According to James Madison, Benjamin Franklin called for a clergyman to be hired by Congress to conduct prayers for the nation, so yes, I think he was on the side of God as opposed to Nogod.

Read more history.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” The answer is apparent to anyone with common sense, and the prisons are full of the proof."

 

[Protestant101]

I have to say, that I just don’t have enough faith to be an atheist!!

 

[Montalban]

Montalban got that one. Though actually, the example you presented is half fallacious appeal to authority, half appeal to emotions. Neither makes a rational argument.

Ta.

Humans have free will.

Are you making this as a statement of belief? If so, how is it that we have ‘free will’ without reference to a greater power? It is my belief that we have free will because of an all powerful god. For instance, if we believed in a Hindu god, one created after the universe this would mean that he’s not all powerful, being subject to the universe which came before him.

And even theists have some very different ideas of what God’s exact stance on moral questions is. Unless God personally enters the debate, he’s useless as an authority.

That’s not true. Because there is disagreement over the truth doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t know the truth… or let me put it another way. I have an object in the middle of the room. I ask 10 people what it is. 9 say it’s a chair. 1 says it’s an elephant. Whilst the 1 person might be correct and the 9 are wrong, or visa versa we can’t say that all are wrong simply because there is disagreement. Nor could we say “We’ll never know the truth, because there is disagreement”.

One can, as shown above re: Hinduism, dismiss their claims based on some critical thought. Of course one might counter “Well, you’ll never really know for sure”

 

[Montalban]

I disagree. The agnostic is not sure if God exists or not and does not take a stance either way. An atheist believes God does not exist but I have not heard an atheist ever say it is impossible that he does. If you have any evidence to refute this please share. All atheists I have heard talk about it, even the most militant and hardcore among them, will argue that the burden of proof is on the theist because he is the one asserting something. Atheist’s are often passionate and convinced of their beliefs, but I do not hear them making assertive arguments attempting to prove that the existence of a supreme being is completely impossible.

Like with a leperchaun, yeti, fairy, or chupacabra; I may scoff at the idea that they exist and think it is foolish to think otherwise but I must admit, however unlikely I think it, that it could somehow be possible. It is impossible to prove they don’t exist and all I can do is state why it is unlikely and maybe argue against what is put forward as positive evidence. But I am not going to assert and try to prove with out a shadow of a doubt that their existence is impossible, how could I possibly do that?

Many atheists I know, because of a need for an encompassing system without God, are materialists. Strictly speaking then a materialist can never know God because God is non-material, and they only believe in the material. A bit like a 2 dimensional being never being able to know 3 dimensions because it’s beyond their scope of understanding.

 

[rivertim]

Mirdath

A man who believes in God but is tempted to great evil just **might **think twice if someone pleads with him to consider the fate of his immortal soul. An atheist has no need to think twice because he thinks he has no immortal soul.

Its a pity that a man who believes in God will only do the right thing, or not do the wrong thing, because he is afraid for his immortal soul. Why can’t he do it just because it is the right thing to do as a reasoning and thinking human person with experience and knowledge to guide him?

An atheist does not need to think twice because he has no fear of the supernatural and acts as a human should act - by using reason applied to every individual situation as it occurs.

 

[Montalban]

Its a pity that a man who believes in God will only do the right thing, or not do the wrong thing, because he is afraid for his immortal soul. Why can’t he do it just because it is the right thing to do as a reasoning and thinking human person with experience and knowledge to guide him?

I agree that it’s best to do ‘good’ for the right reasons.

An atheist does not need to think twice because he has no fear of the supernatural and acts as a human should act - by using reason applied to every individual situation as it occurs.

And how does an atheist do ‘good’ for the right reasons?

In a sense the atheist decides for themselves what is good and if they do it, then they’re just deciding to do whatever they had decided (it was right) to do. Deciding to do something you’ve decided to do is not about ‘morality’.

 

[rivertim]

In a sense the atheist decides for themselves what is good and if they do it, then they’re just deciding to do whatever they had decided (it was right) to do. Deciding to do something you’ve decided to do is not about ‘morality’.

So if an atheist does something based on his own experience and judgement, it is just a choice, but if a man believes in God, all his decisions are based on morality ??

Surely a good person who acts in his own or a group’s best interests, and chooses a route that results in good actions has acted in a moral way, regardless of whether he has used his own reason to act or the lessons from a good book or religion?

 

[Montalban]

So if an atheist does something based on his own experience and judgement, it is just a choice, but if a man believes in God, all his decisions are based on morality ??

Indeed. Personal experience can’t decide what’s good becuase people are different and have different experiences.

Imagine if you were abused as a child. Statistics show that many such people repeat this behaviour. It is therefore good to them, based as it was on their own experiences.

Surely a good person who acts in his own or a group’s best interests, and chooses a route that results in good actions has acted in a moral way, regardless of whether he has used his own reason to act or the lessons from a good book or religion?

Are you arguing for utilitarianism?

America as a nation might argue that it’s best for them, as a group to oppress a neighbouring country so as to make that country so destablised that it’s never going to be a threat to America. This is good, then by your rule

A majority enslaves a minority for the greater good?

 

[rivertim]

Indeed. Personal experience can’t decide what’s good because people are different and have different experiences.

Imagine if you were abused as a child. Statistics show that many such people repeat this behaviour. It is therefore good to them, based as it was on their own experiences.

Sorry, I don’t think this is a very good example. I doubt if any person who was abused, and then perpetrated the same abuse onto someone else would think that they were doing something good. They may be able to justify it because of their past but it would not be ‘good’ by anybody’s standards.
My use of the word ‘experience’ is in terms of accessing good and evil examples to aid our conscience to discriminate between right and wrong.

Are you arguing for utilitarianism?

America as a nation might argue that it’s best for them, as a group to oppress a neighbouring country so as to make that country so destablised that it’s never going to be a threat to America. This is good, then by your rule

A majority enslaves a minority for the greater good?

Again, I don’t think your example addresses what I was saying because I haven’t talked about actions that are best for someone at the expense of another as being good.

No, I don’t think people should do things or justify their actions just because their actions make them happy or satisfied.
I was saying that the good in people is from their nature as humans rather than being derived supernaturally or from religion. People should be able to act in a good way or stop from acting in an evil way just because it is the right thing to do and not because they are afraid of retribution or because a book or religion told them it was right. This to me is the more rational way of living.