Atheism and theism equally irrational in my eyes
Offline I came accross this before and found it quite ironic that atheists refer to themselves as rational. Surely your argument is equal in strength to someone who does believe in a higher power (not a specific religion). As the arguments seem to be equally weak. Science doesn't prove how the world came into existence (referring to before the big bang), and one of the fundamental laws of science being that matter can't be created seems to make for a compelling argument for theists. Now I personally do regard myself as being very rational, and would not discount the possibility of there being a higher power. Although I will make it clear that I don't believe any religion on earth would have it right nor is there any after life. But to say blankly that there is no god, seems quite irrational to me. Would be interested to hear back, thank you
- Login to post comments
Alright so it appears I jumped the gun and just read over the "Am I Agnostic or Atheist" and it appears if that description is accurate then I am an atheist :S. Regardless I would be curious to hear from strong atheists to see if they believe they are the ones being rational.
You have a lot of learning to do.
Do you have any clue as to why atheists say there is no god?
It is not based on what we claim, it is based on what believers of all stripes claim and what we can compare those claims to in reality.
What they postulate at the core is the idea that there is a non-material, disembodied magical super brain with magical super powers.
The problem with all these claims is that they have no empirical way to DEMONSTRATE HOW a thought can arise out of a non-material process. That would be like claiming a human could run without legs. How does thinking occur without a brain?
AND your other problem is that you do not take into account past, present and future, in the context of why we say there is no god.
No past or present claim has any lick of lab tested falsified peer reviewed study that can be universally replicated.
SECONDLY, we do KNOW that humans in our species history are notorious for believing false things.
NOW as far as the future, not knowing should not involve clinging to old stories.
So that brings me to HOW we define atheism in context of past, present and future.
You make the mistake of treating "agnostic" as a position, and it is not.
"a" is the prefix meaning "without" "gnostic" means "to know" or "knowledge". It says nothing about what you don't know about, it only states that you don't know.
For the word to work you have to stick it in front of theist or atheist.
What is commonly used by itself "a generic god(lower case) SHOULD be rightfully called agnostic theist. This is a person who doesn't know what to call this being or know what it's makeup is, but THINKS there might be a god.
BUT the word agnostic is not contrary to atheists and can be used with that word as well.
One can "not know" if a god exists but hold the position that a god does not exist.
I myself am strict atheist as far as past and current claims. I think they are all absurd made up bullshit.
BUT since we have not lived the future, strictly semantically speaking I am an agnostic atheist, although I don't think humans will ever prove the existence of a invisible magical disembodied brain.
AND if you knew Bentrand Russell's "teapot" argument you would understand the fallacy of "burden of proof" you are falling for.
I see not only no problem throwing old claims in the trash can, I see it as an intellectual duty to do so, just like we no longer believe the earth is flat or that the sun is a god.
Being able to make words come out of your mouth does not make them true by default. Until a claim can be universally compared under a universal standard, there should be no good reason to adapt that position. MIND YOU I am addressing any claim on any subject, not just of gods or religion.
Lets review one last time.
1. No one has ever demonstrated a human running without legs. And no one has ever demonstrated how a thought can arise without a material process.
2. Humans are notorious in the species history of believing false things.
3. "It is true by default because you cant prove it isn't" is bad use of logic. Otherwise I do have an invisible pink unicorn in the trunk of my car. Since it is invisible, and you cant see it, it must be real.
4. It is ok to discard bad claims, and not only ok, but an intellectual duty.
5. If we never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.
I hope all this helps.
There is no good reason to believe in a brain with no brain and there is no good evidence to hold such a position. The reality is that people merely like the idea of a fictional super hero and falsely want to believe these fictional beings to be real.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I do discount a "higher power" because it is needlessly complex and causes the problem of infinite regress.
I think everything in the universe is natural, not caused, but just like a hurricane or tornado. It is an on going process and all the things that happen in it are a result of smaller, parts.
One cloud doesn't think "I am going to start a hurricane". It is a combo of complex weather conditions that ARISE, not from a thought, but a natural process.
Why would anything we don't know about the universe need a thought to make it happen if you can accept that vocanos don't think?
Whatever went into the big bang would be just as much an unthinking object as to what we see today.
I find the universe much more "awe" inspiring without inserting the claptrap of a god or even the bullshit of pantheism.
I think black holes are awesome in their power. I think the speed of light is awesome. And even with that speed it still takes 100,000 years for one ray of light to travel the galaxy.
The universe is huge, no doubt. And that also addresses the ineptness of "design" if one is to postulate a thinking being as a cause?
SERIOUSLY
We cant get off this dot, and if we do, or travel is limited and there would be no way for us to get the entire population off the planet in time to avoid a meteor hitting it. It is full of natural disasters and disease and even the horrible violence humans have inflicted on each other throughout it's history.
When people say "Look at all this, it's pretty". I suggest to them to take a shuttle to orbit, take a space walk, and take your helmet off and you will find out how "pretty" the universe is.
The universe is vastly hostile to biological life. If a god existed and ran a factory like he runs the universe with all the lousy output, how long do you think Trump would let him run the factory.
The universe looks exactly as it should if there were no god. That does not mean that there are not things in it we find pretty. It just means that we should not insert fictional beings to explain any of the good or bad in it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I am an atheist, and I believe you're correct, an absolute atheistic stance is as irrational as any other absolute. The best one can do is to assert that to the best of our knowledge, there are no deities. And that's what it comes down to. Atheists are simply people that are not theists.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
The positions are not remotely equivalent, unless you are judging each one from a position of deep ignorance of science, and also of logic.
A creator cannot logically be the origin of existence, since that would require than 'He' create himself. As already mentioned, any idea that such a being is 'required' to create complex thinking life leads to an infinite regress of the impossible kind, whereas the established principle is that complex systems, including thinking beings, can and do emerge from simpler ones, as long as there is energy available to satisfy the requirement that total entropy cannot decrease in a closed system. The latter can allow complex beings to logically and mathematically emerge from the absolutely minimal possible state of existence in a convergent infinite regress of cause/effect, which does not require infinite time or energy.
The total mass/energy content of the Big Bang Universe is believed to be exactly zero, since gravitational potential energy is negative, so there is no violation of conservation laws. You can look this principle up easily.
Matter is required to form the basis of any persistent complex structure, which is, in turn, required to support any ongoing complex process such as consciousness, so, again as already mentioned, positing an 'immaterial' mind has no rational basis.
So there are no 'compelling' arguments for theism - the reverse is the case. Positing a 'God' is a massive violation of the known order of things which would require justification and explanation.
When you throw in the claims that this God is 'Good' and/or Omniscient/Omnipotent, things just go from highly improbable to totally absurd, when we observe history, and the countless afflictions of disease and physical danger, and the many 'design' flaws that are seen throughout the living world.
You are as short-sighted as your namesake, which is well-chosen, since only an extreme short-sightedness could support your position, "in your eyes"...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
No it is not.
I cant believe as an atheist you are falling for this.
Look, the admission that no one knows what future evidence will produce, SHOULD NOT default to making all past and present claims possible as a default position.
The theist is ONLY semantically correct as far as the fact that no human can live in the future now. But that should not constitute us to become like trash hoarders on a reality show.
Being able to discard bad claims and the willingness to use the trash can of ideas is WHY we no longer believe that the earth is flat and that the sun is not a god.
You are falling for the false 50/50 proposition fallacy out of a sense of political correctness.
Not all claims are equal, much less true because of the ability to make sound come out of your mouth.
IT IS FACT that thoughts require a material process. This is not a claim I make, this is a fact of biological evolution.
God belief, in all it's forms is nothing but anthropomorphism. The same gap thinking that once caused humans to think the volcano was an angry god.
Dawkins aptly describes our gap filling flaw as a species as no different than the moth mistaking the light bulb for the natural moonlight it guides itself by.
I can only, AND STRICTLY, from a semantic standpoint admit "I don't know"
TRUE,
But what you are playing into is the Dumb and Dumber crowd, "So you're saying there's a chance"
Here are my odds of a god existing .
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't think I have made myself clear. Never have I given the possibility of a god existing 50/50. That would make me an agnostic. The extreme remote probability is so small as to be insignificant, it is however there.
I am as close to a "strong atheist" as one can get without actually being one.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
To be blunt with you, and silly at the same time. If you are not a dick tease, don't talk like one. Mixed messages are a cluster fuck.
I understand that you don't believe. I just warn against giving believers hope when you damned sure know they are wrong.
ALL you and I are saying is that "yes, it is true we don't know the future"
I agree.
But I don't want to lead them on into thinking that I agree with their absurd claims.
I've dated women in the past who strung me along, not because they wanted me, but because they didn't want to hurt my feelings.
If you don't believe that a god exists. IT IS NOT contrary to saying "I don't know".
If you look at a Roulette wheel in Vegas, certainly any number can come up. But we are not talking about even those limited odds against you. We are talking about wild speculation that started long before scientific method that is merely still popular today.
I would bet on a Roulette wheel number a million times before I would ever bet that a disembodied brain exists.
Angelina Jolie exists and I exist, but I am not going to place bets on her giving me a blow job.
Entropy and reaching absolute zero being impossible, already say that there are no absolutes. But just like I won't get my dick sucked by Angelina Jolie, the majority of people who believe in a god are too deluded to see that it is merely a fantasy. AND if I had to place my bets on a god, any god being a fantasy, I would bet my entire paycheck right now and not lose a lick of sleep. I have more of a chance of getting a blow job from Angelina Jolie than a god existing. And believe me, I am not holding my breath on the blow job.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Lol, I have been called every name in the book, but never a dick tease.
that's funny. I hear you, sometimes I purposely word things so they may be interpreted multiple ways. It gets the conversation going and then I have time to make my point clearer. If you come across strongly in the first response, odds are you will not be engaged, or if you are, you would have set a preconception regarding your stance.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Atheism does not necessarily equate to denial of a god, it equates to lack of belief in a god. It is the ONLY rational position to hold. The default position of any and every life form. Theism must be learned or imagined. It does not even exist otherwise.
Denial of specific gods is rational however. No god created by man that I've heard of can exist. They are all irrelevant or impossible.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.