5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

At least it's not a philosophy thread. I couldn't take any more "meta". This ("Theism" Vs "The Real World.") subject can get that way too, but I can get me head round the logical bits.

I once read Russel's "a history of western philosophy". That put me off philosophy for life.

Good, now read the Bible.

[AshtonBlack]

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

Faith is an excuse, not an answer. It's an excuse for not thinking about something.

Very pithy. I can imagine that in the Reader's Digest. But I think it's a tad disingenuous - there have been many deep "thinkers" in the Church from all sorts of different theological positions, from Aquinas to Calvin, from Newman to Barth.

Quite true. Couldn't it be, of course, that without the "faith" being all pervasive in every aspect of society then those very same deep thinkers would be less brilliant if not practising apologetics?
The church was vastly more powerful back then. No education system came close, for many years. Up until secular universities in places like Bologna.I agree that there were some good minds who practised apologetics, but it was the only game in town.

[colubridae]

...And while the "you prove God exists.....you prove God doesn't exist" debate may be worth rehearsing just occasionally just to remind us of how reason or science alone can never break us fully away from agnosticism, the futility of the argument is also worth remembering so we don't waste too much of our lives on it. I accept I cannot prove the existence of God to you, just as you can't disprove the existence of my God to me.

Oops the evidence does not indicate the equivalence of the god/no god hypotheses.

One, the non-existence of god, is highly probable and as I said earlier has plenty of evidence to support it.
The other one - existence of god - has zero evidence to support it and it has virtually zero likelihood of being correct.

You are definately wrong to equate the the two sides of the argument

as in

'flat earth highly unlikely - god highly unlikely'
'spherical earth highly likely - no god high likely'



edit spelling

[Coito ergo sum]

I can only speak for myself Ces, but I wouldn't say I believe just based on feeling;

That's what it amounts to.

it has to make sense and fit with history.

That's a very vague standard. All the major religions make sense and fit with history.

I don't completely leave my brain at the door

Not completely.

But yes, there is something beyond that, there is faith.

Right, the same character and quality of "evidence" that every other devotee of every other religion falls back on: (a) ancient authoritative writings (scripture), (b) friends, family and religious leaders, and (c) internal feelings (including faith).

That's the point I've been hammering home here. The way you look at Odin or Shintoism, you don't have faith in it and you don't know much if anything about it to know whether it is "historically consistent," etc. That's how they see Christianity - just as alien to them as their religions are to you. You default to Christianity out of familiarity. You attribute your internal "experiences" (which you have yet to describe in any particularity) to Chritianity and not to another religion for the most part because you are steeped in Christianity. Your context is Christianity.

Surely, you can at least see how someone approaching all religions with a clean slate would be unable to distinguish which one (if any) are true?

But that's not startling news (you'll probably be aware of St. Paul's famous verse in 1 Corinthians 1:23 we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, and the writer to the Hebrews famously writes in Hebrews 1:11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen).

That is right - faith is "hope." You "hope" it's real. And, the evidence you rely on is "unseen." Not just unseen, but undetectable, unverifiable -- equivalent to nothing.

So I would indeed expect all Christians to come back to faith in things not seen.

This is the constant subjective thinking of the religious person. Yes, Christians have faith in things not seen. So does every other religion. You reject those other religions' things not seen. So do I. We're in agreement on those other ones. The one thing we disagree on is yours. All the rest of the religions' devotees - they agree with me about your religion.

Now you may find some scholars who have sufficient scholarly knowledge that they rest their faith entirely on reasoning and history, though I think most would also be wise enough to know that prayer plays an important role.

There is no reasoning and history that proves the existence of any god, much less one particular god.

Is it just a warm fuzzy feeling? For me, no. I would want to describe it more in the context of "trust" rather than some emotional high.

You "trust" that your god exists. So do the devotees of every other religion. You reject the gods that those other devotees trust in. Why? The same reason I reject them. There's no reason to trust them. For some reason, you essentially arbitrarily trust yours.

I'm not given to emotional highs; I'm a very typical scientist - when I get excited I may look at someone else's feet instead of my own. The last place on earth you'd find me is in a charismatic Pentecostal church

Maybe you're picking the wrong religion then. How would you know?

- I'd probably be out of there much faster than you! So it's not an emotional feeling (for me). I'm much more a monastic "Be still, and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10) type of person. That feeling of trust and peace has grown over time, but it is not dependent on the constant feeling of the presence of God (and I've never heard voices in my head, apart from the one that constantly says "of course you can have another Jaffa cake, there's only 1g of fat per cake" and I suspect that's not God speaking).

Yes, if you hear voices in your head, please assume that it's not a god speaking to you.

So yes, it is personal (and there is a strong subjective element to it) so I can only really present the way I experience faith and I would not want to generalise too much.

Does any of that make any sense?

It makes perfect sense. And, what it amounts to is "belief without proof or evidence." Faith. It's the one argument that I do respect from a believer. If they say, "I believe it because I feel it. I can't describe it to you, but when you experience what I've experienced, which I am convinced is not a delusion, hallucination or attributable to a natural cause, you will feel the same." I can only say, "Good for you. I haven't experienced that, and I can't read your mind. I can only say that millions of other people from thousands of other religious groups have said the same thing about their religions. I have no way of distinguishing which one, if any of your beliefs, is true."

The problem is when you raise certain things as "proof" for your beliefs when those things simply are not proof for your beliefs. Like, when you say "Christianity's internal consistency" is proof of your god. It isn't. It's no more proof of your god than the history of Buddhism, internally consistent as it is, is proof that Buddha ever really existed as a transcendant being. It's no more roof of your god than the history of the Hindu religion, internally consistent as it is, is proof of Vishnu and the other Hindu gods.

You take certain information too far in an effort place "evidence" beneath your faith that not only is not there but does not need to be there. It's apologetics, and results in the tortured mental gymnastics that really does frustrate the hell out of non-believers and rationalists. You offer as proof for something without parallel, pieces of information that you reject in all other contexts as proof for similar assertions (other gods).

That leaves me with the best definition of Faith I've hear - "Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - Ambrose Bierce.

[colubridae]

Damn! I wish I was as eloquent (and correct) as CES...

[Theophilus]

The church was vastly more powerful back then. No education system came close, for many years. Up until secular universities in places like Bologna.I agree that there were some good minds who practised apologetics, but it was the only game in town.

Yes, I think there is some truth in that, certainly in the time of Aquinas and Calvin. Philosophy, theology and law were the mainstay of the intelligentsia. But I think once you get to Newton's day there's a much broader palette for the thinker to choose from, and there's no doubt Newton was as fascinated, if not more fascinated, by theology as he was by maths and physics. The non-conformists in general seemed to spawn many great thinkers, people such as John Dalton and Erasmus Darwin and, in more recent times, Arthur Eddington - men of faith and deep thinkers. In most recent times you have people like Polkinghorn (O.K. he's not strictly a non-conformist, but he's sort of in that mould). I think often the "faithful thinkers" are ones who are as happy challenging existing theological dogma as they are at challenging the accepted scientific dogma of the day, and may enjoy doing both. But faithful thinkers do exist.

[Theophilus]

Ces,

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I started to reply to the last one but realised I was just repeating myself. If I think of something more useful to add I will (hmmm......I think I might have left an open goal with that comment).

But I will just correct one misunderstanding you may have. If you look back at my posts I have not tried to offer you proof of God; I hope I have always made it clear I can't do that. Things such as internal consistency and historical fit are important to have, and reassure me that my belief is not contrary to logic, reason or known history, but I fully accept they are not proof. Internal "proof" comes from faith (it is "proof" in the manner that it gives sufficient confidence to believe), and I fully accept that is not transferable from one person to another. Faith, I believe, is a gift from God (and I'm very aware that statement relies on faith to believe).

[charlou]

Some are trolls. (The ones I dislike, Hit and Run, Cut and Paste, Lalalala and fair target for ridicule. Like a theist /b/tard.)
Some have doubts and want to explore.(The ones I like. Flawed arguments, but at least willing to engage. One day the veil may rise?)
... and many gradients in between.

I'm not suggesting that ANYONE has been "deconverted" due to a interwebz debate, but it could sow some seeds, perhaps.

As long as things remain civil and everyone plays nice, I don't have a problem.

I just keep hoping someone challenging will show up. Ain't gonna happen, I think.

So God is "your god" and is therefore entirely subjective. I have a headache (really) but it's my personal experience and I wouldn't expect you to have a sympathetic migraine just because I told you I was suffering. Your arguments hold no water. I'm out of here, unconvinced. Again. Slightly disappointed, too, but hardly surprised.

I don't get the two comments I've bolded above. What are the two of you wanting to be challenged about / convinced of?


I assume you mean that you're disappointed that your own arguments are not challenging and convincing enough to sway the absolutist mind of a theist?

[JimC]

Damn! I wish I was as eloquent (and correct) as CES...

+1

(not only that, but an excellent balance between firmness and courtesy...)

[Tigger]

Some are trolls. (The ones I dislike, Hit and Run, Cut and Paste, Lalalala and fair target for ridicule. Like a theist /b/tard.)
Some have doubts and want to explore.(The ones I like. Flawed arguments, but at least willing to engage. One day the veil may rise?)
... and many gradients in between.

I'm not suggesting that ANYONE has been "deconverted" due to a interwebz debate, but it could sow some seeds, perhaps.

As long as things remain civil and everyone plays nice, I don't have a problem.

I just keep hoping someone challenging will show up. Ain't gonna happen, I think.

So God is "your god" and is therefore entirely subjective. I have a headache (really) but it's my personal experience and I wouldn't expect you to have a sympathetic migraine just because I told you I was suffering. Your arguments hold no water. I'm out of here, unconvinced. Again. Slightly disappointed, too, but hardly surprised.

I don't get the two comments I've bolded above. What are the two of you wanting to be challenged about / convinced of?

I assume you mean that you're disappointed that your own arguments are not challenging and convincing enough to sway the absolutist mind of a theist?

No, I mean that I am being totally ignored apart from the occasional "I'll get back to you". It's easier for the theist to gabble on in a pseudo-philosophical vein than to offer a prosaic sentence. Or even two.

There have been several direct questions asked about empirical evidence, and historical evidence inter alia, but Theo avoids giving direct (and concise) straight answers.

Despite this:

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There have been several direct questions asked about empirical evidence, and historical evidence inter alia, but Theo avoids giving direct (and concise) straight answers.

Despite this:

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

He didn't say:

Bless you Gawdz, I do concise answers.

[Tigger]

There have been several direct questions asked about empirical evidence, and historical evidence inter alia, but Theo avoids giving direct (and concise) straight answers.

Despite this:

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

He didn't say:

Bless you Gawdz, I do concise answers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There have been several direct questions asked about empirical evidence, and historical evidence inter alia, but Theo avoids giving direct (and concise) straight answers.

Despite this:

Does any of that make any sense?

No.

Bless you Gawdz, I do like concise answers.

He didn't say:

Bless you Gawdz, I do concise answers.

Or even:

Bless you Gawdz, I do answers.

[AshtonBlack]

The church was vastly more powerful back then. No education system came close, for many years. Up until secular universities in places like Bologna.I agree that there were some good minds who practised apologetics, but it was the only game in town.

Yes, I think there is some truth in that, certainly in the time of Aquinas and Calvin. Philosophy, theology and law were the mainstay of the intelligentsia. But I think once you get to Newton's day there's a much broader palette for the thinker to choose from, and there's no doubt Newton was as fascinated, if not more fascinated, by theology as he was by maths and physics. The non-conformists in general seemed to spawn many great thinkers, people such as John Dalton and Erasmus Darwin and, in more recent times, Arthur Eddington - men of faith and deep thinkers. In most recent times you have people like Polkinghorn (O.K. he's not strictly a non-conformist, but he's sort of in that mould). I think often the "faithful thinkers" are ones who are as happy challenging existing theological dogma as they are at challenging the accepted scientific dogma of the day, and may enjoy doing both. But faithful thinkers do exist.

Newton was into alchemy and the occult as well as theology, maths, physics, but I take your point.

Scientific dogma? Could you clarify what you mean?
Isn't the scientific method designed so dogmas get overturned by the data? eg Newton's Gravitational Theory gets overturned by Einstein's General Relativity?
Or something else? Like we don't accept anything without evidence?

[Rob]

Some are trolls. (The ones I dislike, Hit and Run, Cut and Paste, Lalalala and fair target for ridicule. Like a theist /b/tard.)
Some have doubts and want to explore.(The ones I like. Flawed arguments, but at least willing to engage. One day the veil may rise?)
... and many gradients in between.

I'm not suggesting that ANYONE has been "deconverted" due to a interwebz debate, but it could sow some seeds, perhaps.

As long as things remain civil and everyone plays nice, I don't have a problem.

I just keep hoping someone challenging will show up. Ain't gonna happen, I think.

So God is "your god" and is therefore entirely subjective. I have a headache (really) but it's my personal experience and I wouldn't expect you to have a sympathetic migraine just because I told you I was suffering. Your arguments hold no water. I'm out of here, unconvinced. Again. Slightly disappointed, too, but hardly surprised.

I don't get the two comments I've bolded above. What are the two of you wanting to be challenged about / convinced of?


I assume you mean that you're disappointed that your own arguments are not challenging and convincing enough to sway the absolutist mind of a theist?

I think more so that no new ideas have come to fruition that challenge the rational mind to explain away the seemingly impossible.