5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Feck]

Sometimes it takes a long thread to get to the point ... Now the next point . Anyone who ignores the obvious and convinces themselves that their funny feeling inside justifies throwing all sense and rationality out the door is a lunatic .

[Theophilus]

Sometimes it takes a long thread to get to the point ... Now the next point . Anyone who ignores the obvious and convinces themselves that their funny feeling inside justifies throwing all sense and rationality out the door is a lunatic .

Well, I'd love to talk to you more about that, but I must go and bark at the moon for a while first

[Feck]

Sometimes it takes a long thread to get to the point ... Now the next point . Anyone who ignores the obvious and convinces themselves that their funny feeling inside justifies throwing all sense and rationality out the door is a lunatic .

Well, I'd love to talk to you more about that, but I must go and bark at the moon for a while first

At least the moon is there !

[Theophilus]

Sometimes it takes a long thread to get to the point ... Now the next point . Anyone who ignores the obvious and convinces themselves that their funny feeling inside justifies throwing all sense and rationality out the door is a lunatic .

Well, I'd love to talk to you more about that, but I must go and bark at the moon for a while first

At least the moon is there !

If course it is; I've seen it on the clangers.

[Coito ergo sum]

After all may many conversations with Christians, I am routinely left with the sneaking suspicion that they just don't want to say that they have no "reason" to believe what they believe, but they just feel that there must be something and Christianity seems to make the most sense to them. The believer wants to somehow justify his or her belief as if it's just as "backed up" by reality, reason and evidence as any other idea. They especially seem to want to create an "equivalence" - like "there's no way we can really know anything, so therefore my belief is just as justifiable." Or, that "atheists have as much faith (or sometimes 'more faith') as religious people."

That's the best I can do to describe this disconnect. And that is what it is. When a religious person thinks about his or her religion, there is a disconnect between that and how a person thinks about other things (and other religions).

I also find there is almost always a serious resistance to saying: I take it on faith, and that's that.

There seems to be a gut feeling among the religious that unless there is some sort of "proof" that their faith is a very weak reason to believe. So, there is this impulse to defend their faith and engage in apologetics to make it "make sense." Hence, we see people going through tortured rationale that somehow they can see as supremely persuasive, but the nonbeliever can't fathom how anyone can find the rationale persuasive.

I find it fascinating.

EDIT - oh - also, I almost always get a sense of fear or reticence to contemplate the concept that there may not be anything supernatural there - no life after death - and that once we're gone, there will be nothing, just like the 14.5 billion years before we were born. That, in my view, represents the driving force behind the believer's need to believe. They think something to the effect of, "this can't be the end, there MUST be something else there..."

Whereas I, on the other hand, am not disconcerted in the least at the prospect of there being nothing after this life. For some reason, I even find that to be a pleasant possibility, far less disconcerting than the potential offered by some religions, like Christianity. The idea that Christianity offers hope, to me, is really not something that makes sense to me. I see it as offering a death sentence - no, a torture sentence - to most of the human population. I see it as characterizing humans as bad and undeserving, whereas I see people as complexities of good and bad, to one degree or another. I wold much prefer nothing to come after life than an eternity of torment, and frankly, given that Christianity posits that most people who call themselves Christians are not on the right path, it really results in there being a tiny minority of humans that would even get into heaven. That, to me, is not a gift, but a curse.

I think if someone gave me the choice of either (A) some form of Christianity is real, and you have to figure out which manner of believing is the right one - or you have to take the chance of whether god will grant you his "grace" - or (B) being guaranteed not to go to hell, but that this life will be the only one and oblivion is alll that remains. I would take B. The gambler inside of me would think about A, but I think I'd rather just be guaranteed that there wouldn't be any pain or torment for eternity.

That's why one of my favorite quotes is Asimov's: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.."

[Theophilus]

That's why one of my favorite quotes is Asimov's: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.."

I find that interesting, and it is line with the Reformed Christian tradition (and that of certain Catholic theologians such as Catherine of Sienna) that those not "in Christ", those that have not repented*, would never wish to be with Christ/God after this life anyway.

*I take N.T.Wright's view that "repentance" or "metanoia" in scripture is not simply talking about repenting of personal sin but rather is talking about embracing a new way of thinking; in the context of the message at the time it was embracing the idea that Christ was building the Kingdom of God rather than the Kingdom of God being focussed on the temple. Repentance is not being sorry for sin (though it would include that), but is letting an old way of thinking and acting die and embracing a new way (our old selves die, so that our new selves may have life, paraphrasing Matthew 16:28).

(I liked Carl Sagan, his "Cosmos" series made a big impression on me when I was young, fueling my desire to make a career out of science).

[Thinking Aloud]

That's why one of my favorite quotes is Asimov's: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.."

I find that interesting, and it is line with the Reformed Christian tradition (and that of certain Catholic theologians such as Catherine of Sienna) that those not "in Christ", those that have not repented*, would never wish to be with Christ/God after this life anyway.

Jam tomorrow.

[Theophilus]

That's why one of my favorite quotes is Asimov's: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.."

I find that interesting, and it is line with the Reformed Christian tradition (and that of certain Catholic theologians such as Catherine of Sienna) that those not "in Christ", those that have not repented*, would never wish to be with Christ/God after this life anyway.

Jam tomorrow.

And today, if you buy in to Joel Osteen's prosperity gospel

I can say, from a personal viewpoint, the "after-life" was something I did not dwell on much as I was coming back into the church and I don't dwell on it much now. But I accept that for others that it may be a significant factor.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's why one of my favorite quotes is Asimov's: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.."

I find that interesting, and it is line with the Reformed Christian tradition (and that of certain Catholic theologians such as Catherine of Sienna) that those not "in Christ", those that have not repented*, would never wish to be with Christ/God after this life anyway.

Jam tomorrow.

And today, if you buy in to Joel Osteen's prosperity gospel

Yeah, that Joel Osteen's religion is ridiculous. Yours makes sense. His is ridiculous. How could anyone "buy into" that?

[Theophilus]

Oh, you are a tease Ces

[Coito ergo sum]

That's why one of my favorite quotes is Asimov's: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.."

I find that interesting, and it is line with the Reformed Christian tradition (and that of certain Catholic theologians such as Catherine of Sienna) that those not "in Christ", those that have not repented*, would never wish to be with Christ/God after this life anyway.

It's not that I have any wish not to be with Christ/God after this life. It's that I recognize that if Christians are correct, most humans who have ever lived go to hell. That doesn't make any one particular human's odds very good. Further, some Christian denominations teach that there is nothing a specific human can do to find heaven. God either calls an individual, or he doesn't. Maybe they're right. I don't know.

The thing that Asimov was getting at was that Christianity (or any religion with a potentially torturous afterlife) is what gives us a fear of the afterlife. If there is no Christian god, then there is no Christian hell, and nobody is tormented for all eternity.

*I take N.T.Wright's view that "repentance" or "metanoia" in scripture is not simply talking about repenting of personal sin but rather is talking about embracing a new way of thinking;

What way of thinking is that, exactly?

in the context of the message at the time it was embracing the idea that Christ was building the Kingdom of God rather than the Kingdom of God being focussed on the temple.

So? Does that change the fact that most humans will be tortured for all eternity if one of the predominant Christian views are correct? (not all Christians believe in Hell, but that's another matter, and further makes my point about us not being able to tell which belief is right).

Repentance is not being sorry for sin (though it would include that), but is letting an old way of thinking and acting die and embracing a new way (our old selves die, so that our new selves may have life, paraphrasing Matthew 16:28).

So? Does that change the fact that most humans will be tortured for all eternity if one of the predominant Christian views are correct?

What is the new way of thinking and acting?

(I liked Carl Sagan, his "Cosmos" series made a big impression on me when I was young, fueling my desire to make a career out of science).

Carl was very incisive:

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, you are a tease Ces

It's not meant in a teasing manner. It's quite serious.

It is quite a good example of the point I've made.

His view is no more (or less) unverifiable than yours. There is no special reason that what you believe is more credible than his. He has the same evidence for his beliefs as you have for yours. It's no different to "buy into" Osteen's belief as it is to "buy into" yours.

[Theophilus]

Oh, you are a tease Ces

It's not meant in a teasing manner. It's quite serious.

It is quite a good example of the point I've made.

His view is no more (or less) unverifiable than yours. There is no special reason that what you believe is more credible than his. He has the same evidence for his beliefs as you have for yours. It's no different to "buy into" Osteen's belief as it is to "buy into" yours.

Except that Olsteen claims authority of the bible, and many have pointed to the flaws in his exegesis (when he does exegete in any detail, which is rarely). I would say, from what I have seen of his views, that his is a theology with internal inconstancies. His is not the view of the Christian who must take up his cross.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, you are a tease Ces

It's not meant in a teasing manner. It's quite serious.

It is quite a good example of the point I've made.

His view is no more (or less) unverifiable than yours. There is no special reason that what you believe is more credible than his. He has the same evidence for his beliefs as you have for yours. It's no different to "buy into" Osteen's belief as it is to "buy into" yours.

Except that Olsteen claims authority of the bible, and many have pointed to the flaws in his exegesis (when he does exegete in any detail, which is rarely).

You too rarely exegete any detail, and I can guarantee you that "many" can point out flaws in your exegesis. That's what Christians do quite often, one denomination points out the flaws in the others' exegesis. Protestants are sure Catholics are way off base, and Catholics are sure Protestants are way off base.

I would say, from what I have seen of his views, that his is a theology with internal inconstancies. His is not the view of the Christian who must take up his cross.

What are the internal inconsistencies?

[Theophilus]

You too rarely exegete any detail

In depth exegetical discussions on an atheist forum? I can't see that world be productive as there is no common frame of reference.

What are the internal inconsistencies?

In a message that teaches (effectively) that you'll get everything you want in this world by following Christ? I would say that is inconsistent with the source of his claimed authority (such as in Luke 16:19-31 and Mark 10:17-24). O.K., we don't meet up to those standards, but to actually preach seeking and attaining financial prosperity through following Christ seems a tad off-target to me. Still, if you find no inconsistencies with Olsteen's message then fair enough.

But I accept I may be wrong about Olsteen's beliefs; I have not looked into them in detail but I find the tag-lines he uses (such as here and here) rather out of kilter with my understanding of scripture.

P.S. If you're interested in Olsteen then there's a documentary here from Premier Christian radio on a couple of US mega-churches, including Olsteen's.

P.P.S. I assume you know Premier also run a forum that is intended for mixed Christians and non-Christians to interact. That's here, though it does tend to get bogged down in creation debates.