5 reasons atheism is irrational

[J.A.Poisson]

[Feck]

Goodness Mr Fungus, if I ever thought anyone considered me to have absolute authority I'd become a mute (though it could be useful with the kids sometimes). No, please take anything I write as just my musings.

One day soon I will put my musings together on a subject that has interested me; whether it is possible to be a "christian agnostic", a sort of ultimate liberal christian who takes some form of inspiration from the teachings of christ, without building a metaphysics or model of the universe from them, and without any desire to project any moral conclusions they may draw from their musings onto others...

Yes easy the only lesson worth learning in the entire book is "Do unto others ...." everything else just follows on from that .

[JimC]

Read half the OP and the last couple of posts. Can someone tell me if it's worth reading that little bit in the middle?

Every one of my posts on this somewhat bizarre but interesting thread are PURE FUCKING GOLD!

(some of the others are sort of OK...)

[tytalus]

Tytalus - I think whenever we are drawn to someone or something we should put our "safety hat" on. I don't think there is any good or bad about being drawn by itself; we may be drawn to sport which is likely to be good for us, or we may be drawn to drugs which is likely to be bad for us. I remember early on actually pausing and thinking "do I want to continue with this", so I think most of us do have in-built checks to stop us getting involved in things that are likely to harm us. Perhaps we need to know ourselves as well; I'm quite a cautious person, averse to risk-taking, and consider two spoons of coffee in my mug quite risqué.

Busy day for me today, or I would have gotten to this a bit sooner.

Anyway, I understand that your church-going may do you no substantial harm (a case could be made for wasted time, lost resources etc. but that may not be substantial). This is a goalpost shift, however, from the earlier premise of portraying your chosen path as having some rationality to it. You're welcome to your relatively harmless belief system of course, but to claim 'no obvious fallacies' when I can find this emotional appeal staring me in the face, well. Obvious fallacy fail. I mean to make nothing more of it than that. This below, wasn't about risky behavior or potential harm that I can see.

I felt drawn (back) into Christianity after many years on your side of the fence. I don't know why (I've been blessed so far with a very relaxed life with no major worries and so there was no anxiety that I was looking to deal with). It was never a dramatic experience for me - I simply felt drawn to read the bible more and more and then go and sit in a church, and finally to pray. Faith came slowly through that period (which was about a two month "confused agnostic" period). After that I took more of an interest in Church history and in theology, and it was important to me (I know Ces feels differently) to ensure that everything was internally consistent as far as I could understand and check (call it "due diligence" if you like). So the conviction in the end, after checking there are no obvious fallacies, comes from prayer, faith and (I would say) God.

[FBM]

...So the conviction in the end, after checking there are no obvious fallacies, comes from prayer, faith and (I would say) God.

No obvious fallacies? Like appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, emotion appeal, special pleading, circular reasoning, begging the question, etc, etc, etc? Theistic justifications, like the babble itself, is full of very obvious fallacies. You don't see them only because you don't want to. You're hooked and blinded by your own addiction.

If the conviction comes from god, then how is it a virtue of yours? How can you deserve to go to heaven if it's something that god does? (I know what you're going to say, so don't bother. It's just going to go into infinite regress.)

[Theophilus]

FBM,

You'll know, I think, that few Christians think any of us deserve heaven, but rather it relies on unmerited grace. The outworkings of this grace though are interesting and probably played in important role in the "Protestant work ethic" (by wanting to demonstrate that one had faith), the philanthropy of the Quaker business owners (such as George Cadbury) and, some would claim, the drive behind the industrial revolution.

If I look around me today, I do wonder if today's young soceity has lost that Protestant work ethic. There is perhaps an increasing proportion of society whose aim is to obtain as much as they can in return for the minimal amount of work. But that is possibly getting a little too far off/topic.

[Theophilus]

Goodness Mr Fungus, if I ever thought anyone considered me to have absolute authority I'd become a mute (though it could be useful with the kids sometimes). No, please take anything I write as just my musings.

One day soon I will put my musings together on a subject that has interested me; whether it is possible to be a "christian agnostic", a sort of ultimate liberal christian who takes some form of inspiration from the teachings of christ, without building a metaphysics or model of the universe from them, and without any desire to project any moral conclusions they may draw from their musings onto others...

I am liberal in that I do not think a Christian should impose their morals on others (though we bring up children with our values). I am not liberal in that I think as a Christian grows in theIr faith they will increasingly want to follow the way of Christ rather than following their own whims (though perhaps, as that is their choice, one could argue this is still a liberal theology). I am also a liberal in that I think even within the Christian commumity we must allow people to grow and develop at their own pace rather than enforcing rules on fellow Christians.

I would of course limit liberty at the point of harming others. As the old saying goes, my freedom to wave my fists in the air stops st the end of your nose.

(But I wouldn't fall into your agnostic category).

[Surendra Darathy]

I am not liberal in that I think as a Christian grows in theIr faith they will increasingly want to follow the way of Christ rather than following their own whims (though perhaps, as that is their choice, one could argue this is still a liberal theology). I am also a liberal in that I think even within the Christian commumity we must allow people to grow and develop at their own pace rather than enforcing rules on fellow Christians.

It amounts, then, to a mouthful of wishy-washy platitudes to which are pre-pended "Christ taught that...". So: Argument from authority. If they are good ideas to begin with, what is the point of re-branding them "Christ taught that..."?

Yep, you got it: Pie in the sky.

You'll know, I think, that few Christians think any of us deserve heaven, but rather it relies on unmerited grace. The outworkings of this grace though are interesting and probably played in important role in the "Protestant work ethic", the philanthropy of the Quaker business owners (such as George Cadbury) and, some would claim, the drive behind the industrial revolution.

That's supposed to be a good thing? Start from the bottom of a hole, and anything looks like a Pilgrim's progress...

Philanthropy is crap if the best you can do with it is to pat yourself on the back for doing it...

What is it that causes Xians like you to try to explain their beliefs to non-believers? It doesn't make your foundational beliefs any less arbitrary; it just slathers on a cloying layer of sentimental rationalisation. I will pretty much leave Xians alone to practice their weird faith, but as soon as they start to try to justify themselves, blood is in the water...

It's all about Pie in the Sky, and the reason you don't mention it is because even you recognise how silly it sounds.

[Theophilus]

I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying Surendra.

Is Christianity just a bunch of platitudes? I wouldn't say so; from a Christian's perspective it is nothing less than the breaking through of the Kingdom of God into the world, through the person of Jesus Christ, God incarnate. Some of it is hard teaching and could not be classed as a platitude, and that is why I think people must be given time to absorb it and be formed by it.

I think I may not have been clear about the "Protestant work ethic". I was not using it as an argument to support Christianity, but rather an observation that it flows from a particular understanding of Christianity, and so is of interest to historians. Though I do think that the UK will suffer from the loss of this hard work ethic. Philanthropy, of course, should not be about patting one self on the back (I imagine we all do that to some extent though), but rather it is the outworking of a theology or philosophy that focusses on the other rather than on the self.

Why do we explain our beliefs to others? Well on one level it's just normal social interchange and chat. However I think a society that does interact that way benefits from it. We are better off, I think, understanding other people's positions. As the old Indian saying goes, before you judge a man you should walk 10 miles in his moccasins (that way, when you judge him you're ten miles away and he's got no shoes to wear to chase you ).

[Thinking Aloud]

Is Christianity just a bunch of platitudes? I wouldn't say so; from a Christian's perspective it is nothing less than the breaking through of the Kingdom of God into the world, through the person of Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

Yes, but what does that mean? To me on the "outside" now (having been on the inside and still not understood it other than as a tortured explanation of why we're nice to one another) it's just a bunch of words that have absolutely no meaning. It really doesn't mean anything. It sounds grand, but it has no substance.

Some of it is hard teaching and could not be classed as a platitude, and that is why I think people must be given time to absorb it and be formed by it.

Or "indoctrinated" to use the slightly more pointed term.

[Surendra Darathy]

from a Christian's perspective it is nothing less than the breaking through of the Kingdom of God into the world, through the person of Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

That's sweet, and all, but I won't be impressed until you can show me that the above string of words has some semantic content you can translate into English. So far, it is an "incantation", which is singing for the joy of singing, and not for any purposes of mutual communication. Whatever gets you hard, man.

You may have assumed I might have heard something to that effect in a church to which I was at one time or another somehow committed, but I never have. I was never indoctrinated in The Big Wibble, so such incantations have no resonance or nostalgia with me. This is largely responsible for how glib I find the expression.

Some of it is hard teaching and could not be classed as a platitude, and that is why I think people must be given time to absorb it and be formed by it.

Well, right on schedule, there's something about "hardness", though not as you would most like to suggest. How do you bootstrap the problem of getting someone to spend the time? Do you think that sterile wibbling about it in an internet forum is going to inspire anyone? No, it's the old model of casting your nets wide. You don't want anything all that hard, I don't think. You want the fish that are easily landed, though you claim that taking time to absorb and be formed by it means that something great has been achieved. Look at it closely and you will see meaningless tautology.

I think I may not have been clear about the "Protestant work ethic". I was not using it as an argument to support Christianity, but rather an observation that it flows from a particular understanding of Christianity, and so is of interest to historians.

Well, we're not engaged in historical scholarship, here, so let's pass over it as a tedious irrelevancy in the present context.

Though I do think that the UK will suffer from the loss of this hard work ethic.

A grateful planet rejoices at having received this vast wisdom typed directly by your very own fingertips.

Philanthropy, of course, should not be about patting one self on the back (I imagine we all do that to some extent though), but rather it is the outworking of a theology or philosophy that focusses on the other rather than on the self.

Lots of things should be about lots of other things, but I didn't detect that this thread was about getting to "ought". The title of the thread suggests only that atheism is "irrational" and not that atheism is "evil". Are you suggesting that atheism is irrational because it somehow necessarily deprives one of the capacity to consider the other? Is that the definition of "irrationality" we are going to entertain? What are you on about, here?

Why do we explain our beliefs to others? Well on one level it's just normal social interchange and chat.

I quite agree, and we can go on chit-chatting until Jeebus returns to collect what's owed. I tend toward what might be considered a more psychoanalytic perspective, with hypotheses into something known as "cognitive dissonance".

However I think a society that does interact that way benefits from it. We are better off, I think, understanding other people's positions.

Well, the circularity in saying that the function of Xianity is to be "better off" is not lost on me. Feeling that one is "better off" is an internal state of mind, and not something that is prescribed, as in "morality".

As the old Indian saying goes, before you judge a man you should walk 10 miles in his moccasins (that way, when you judge him you're ten miles away and he's got no shoes to wear to chase you.

You can't judge a book by its cover, Theophilus, but you can sure get information about how much it's gonna cost.

[Theophilus]

Yes, but what does that mean?

Here's my attempt at a brief summary....

I think I'd start with the Jewish pharisaical tradition at the time, which was that there would be a bodily resurrection "at the end", so there was a neat distinction between this world and the world to come. You lived, you died, you went to Sheol, and at some time on the future there would be a bodily resurrection. But Jesus came teaching about how the Kingdom of heaven was actually like yeast, or like wheat mixed in with tares. Both parables pointed to the Kingdom mixing with the current world. So we have an intermediate time when the Kingdom is mixed with this world, and that started with Christ himself who brought the Kingdom into this world so that anyone who is with (or "in") Christ is part of that Kingdom now (this of course upset the Pharisees who saw the temple, not some itinerant rabbi from Galilee, as at the centre of their religion).

[Surendra Darathy]

He's my attempt at a brief summary....

Here's my brief attempt at calling "bollocks" on your brief summary. Big heaps of steaming bollocks.

Minor points:

What is it we find compelling about replacing one set of traditions with another?

Basically, you're quoting dogma at us, and frankly, I'm insulted by how little intellectual effort on your part you seem to think we deserve.

Oh, wait. There's nothing intellectual involved, is there? It's only a bunch of incantations you memorize, accept on faith, and quote to others as something to be swallowed whole.

Jesus came teaching about how the Kingdom of heaven was actually like yeast

So poetry and parables are supposed to be informative? No. How can we be informed about "KOH", which is imaginary, by comparing it to "yeast", which is not. This kind of shite implies, more than anything else, that I am stupid. Expect me to react with a mixture of contempt and rough humour.

[tytalus]

...So the conviction in the end, after checking there are no obvious fallacies, comes from prayer, faith and (I would say) God.

No obvious fallacies? Like appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, emotion appeal, special pleading, circular reasoning, begging the question, etc, etc, etc? Theistic justifications, like the babble itself, is full of very obvious fallacies. You don't see them only because you don't want to. You're hooked and blinded by your own addiction.

If the conviction comes from god, then how is it a virtue of yours? How can you deserve to go to heaven if it's something that god does? (I know what you're going to say, so don't bother. It's just going to go into infinite regress.)

Ironic, that after I take extra time to quibble over that 'obvious fallacy' part, someone goes and misquotes the thing to make it look like I am the fallacious xian in the conversation.

Anyway, interesting that faith vs. works made its way into the discussion. I know from reading the bible that xians have struggled with this paradox, 'protestant work ethic' notwithstanding, from the contradictory advice offered in their holy book.

[colubridae]

Yes, but what does that mean?

Here's my attempt at a brief summary....

I think I'd start with the Jewish pharisaical tradition at the time, which was that there would be a bodily resurrection "at the end", so there was a neat distinction between this world and the world to come. You lived, you died, you went to Sheol, and at some time on the future there would be a bodily resurrection. But Jesus came teaching about how the Kingdom of heaven was actually like yeast, or like wheat mixed in with tares. Both parables pointed to the Kingdom mixing with the current world. So we have an intermediate time when the Kingdom is mixed with this world, and that started with Christ himself who brought the Kingdom into this world so that anyone who is with (or "in") Christ is part of that Kingdom now (this of course upset the Pharisees who saw the temple, not some itinerant rabbi from Galilee, as at the centre of their religion).

You really believe this rubbish...?

Seriously?

You may as well believe star wars, harry potter, or muhammed, or any other fairy story.


Unless of course you don't believe at all and enjoy argument for its own sake, which is cool too.


(p.s. from earlier in the topic - jebus still ranks along with flat earth i.e. extremely low probablity...
stochastic mumbo-jumbo notwithstanding - just because it's difficult to work out probabilities doesn't mean they can't be assessed as very low.
quit with the red herrings... none of us are doing that; only you.)