Atheists and reason

[FedUpWithFaith]

*Topic split from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 84&start=0 - Charlou*

It's weird. One of my very first posts at RD over 3 years ago was very similar to that one.

I wish I could find it - fucking RDF disabled search.

Even before search went down I noticed they removed most of my posts. The thread it was in was where i first met Iano and that entire thread was removed. Iano was a very brilliant conservative Irish Catholic who argued very effectively, patiently, and forcefully and pissed a lot of people off. He was later banned against my objections and i recall yours as well. Otherwise, few people were willing to stand up for him. I actually interceded behind the scenes and got OBC willing to reinstate him but Iano had burned his bridges by then and decided not to accept. That entire episode was a bitter pill. I hate it when atheists act just like herd Christians and stifle what they don't want to hear. That hypocrisy riles me to no end.

[charlou]

It's weird. One of my very first posts at RD over 3 years ago was very similar to that one.

I wish I could find it - fucking RDF disabled search.

Even before search went down I noticed they removed most of my posts. The thread it was in was where i first met Iano and that entire thread was removed. Iano was a very brilliant conservative Irish Catholic who argued very effectively, patiently, and forcefully and pissed a lot of people off. He was later banned against my objections and i recall yours as well. Otherwise, few people were willing to stand up for him.

Yes, I recall that well. It was, for me, a very disappointing and eye opening example that atheists are not always rational in their thinking and actions. Though I'd recognised atheism is simply the non-belief in deities, I guess I had a bit of an assumption that this was a rational position, therefore atheists are rational. Of course, now I realise this is not always the case ... and even if their atheism itself has a rational foundation, that doesn't preclude the possibility of other irrational and unreasonable thinking or behaviour in atheists.

I actually interceded behind the scenes and got OBC willing to reinstate him but Iano had burned his bridges by then and decided not to accept.

I didn't know of that.

That entire episode was a bitter pill. I hate it when atheists act just like herd Christians and stifle what they don't want to hear. That hypocrisy riles me to no end.

Indeed. I've seen many examples since the Iano incident ... most exasperating ... but I learn just as valuable personal lessons from observing such behaviour as I learn from finding common ground and agreement with ideas, if not more so.

[Rum]

I am not sure if atheists are any more or less rational that people of faith. I know some atheists who are atheists not because they have reasoned their way to that position, but simply through intuition or instinct. I have known a few who are atheists by default because their parents never indoctrinated them into any type of formal religion. I have also met many clever and highly rational Christians and particularly Buddhists. Atheism may be a 'rational' stance but I am not sure what that says necessarily about atheists themselves.

[devogue]

I am probably the most irrational rational person here.

I'm a fucking nutjob.

[Feck]

I'm not rational (I think you all knew that )

[Rum]

I am probably the most irrational rational person here.

I'm a fucking nutjob.

[Pappa]

I am probably the most irrational rational person here.

I'm a fucking nutjob.

Actually, I just remembered something about you.

[AshtonBlack]

The thing is, we can be rational about certain things and irrational about others. Being one does not preclude the other.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The thing is, we can be rational about certain things and irrational about others. Being one does not preclude the other.

Did you have a reason for saying that?

[Animavore]

Agree with the OP here.
I'm also slightly annoyed with a couple of individuals who jump down people's throats when they put forward an argument for God. And I'm not talking about creationists, they get everything they deserve as far as I'm concerned. I'm just talking about normal theists.
There was a guy just recently was talking about God and they attacked him like a piranha and even made wild assumptions about what he did and did not believe. That pissed me off.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agree with the OP here.
I'm also slightly annoyed with a couple of individuals who jump down people's throats when they put forward an argument for God. And I'm not talking about creationists, they get everything they deserve as far as I'm concerned. I'm just talking about normal theists.
There was a guy just recently was talking about God and they attacked him like a piranha and even made wild assumptions about what he did and did not believe. That pissed me off.

Hell, I got swarmed here for speculating about the survival of a part of us after death, without ANY religious implications implied.

[Animavore]

Agree with the OP here.
I'm also slightly annoyed with a couple of individuals who jump down people's throats when they put forward an argument for God. And I'm not talking about creationists, they get everything they deserve as far as I'm concerned. I'm just talking about normal theists.
There was a guy just recently was talking about God and they attacked him like a piranha and even made wild assumptions about what he did and did not believe. That pissed me off.

Hell, I got swarmed here for speculating about the survival of a part of us after death, without ANY religious implications implied.

There's no need for it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agree with the OP here.
I'm also slightly annoyed with a couple of individuals who jump down people's throats when they put forward an argument for God. And I'm not talking about creationists, they get everything they deserve as far as I'm concerned. I'm just talking about normal theists.
There was a guy just recently was talking about God and they attacked him like a piranha and even made wild assumptions about what he did and did not believe. That pissed me off.

Hell, I got swarmed here for speculating about the survival of a part of us after death, without ANY religious implications implied.

There's no need for it.

Most of the time it's reflex, I think. Ele got swarmed the same way.

[FedUpWithFaith]

The thing is, we can be rational about certain things and irrational about others. Being one does not preclude the other.

Yes, actually I've seen atheists and theists act rationally and irrationally about the same thing. Any contentious topic has both emotional and rational components.. Emotions often dictate direction, especially when we're passionate about something and humans rationalize their irrational behavior.

Frankly, when the message or messenger is loved or hated, I've generally found that atheists are no better than theists in their tendency to respectively sycophantly herd or attempt to silence.

I think much of this is naturally programmed by evolution. I was watching Koi in my pond the other day before a storm. Most of them usually herd together and this generally helps them avoid predation. They are also social creatures. But there are always a few loners who explore the outer fringes of the pond and when there is a big storm - they tend to be the ones to migrate to my larger ponds They are also more likely to get picked off by herons. But if my smaller pond were to dry up somehow or get silted in, the later survival strategy would show its value even more. Some balance in between both survival strategies is optimal for long-term survival of social species.

I think humans are a lot like that. Most of us usually prefer to be part of the herd and then there are those like me, who usually prefer not to be. One isn't necessarily better in every context than the other and both carry positive and negative baggage. The non-herders generally tend to be in the vast minority though we all have both sides in us to some extent and exhibit it under different conditions.

I guess my assumption has always been that atheists probably tend more toward the non-herder, at least in the US where this stance is still rather embattled. And I think this is still true, though not as much as i did before. My guess is that many atheists make up for whatever feelings of rejection or isolation atheism yields in the majority theist community by seeking the herd in other areas of life or by belonging to forums like this to seek to be part of some herd, no matter how small. Perhaps that makes forums like RDF even more susceptible to herd behavior and the divisions it fosters with "outsiders". I do know I've witnessed us all do it under various conditions, some worse than others.

[floppit]

Speaking personally, I think of reasoning and rationality like discipline, instead of just letting my mind jump around like an elephant on a hot plate (a very, very big one!) I try, maybe not always succeed, but I try to look carefully for what evidence is available, what emotions I might have and whether I've looked as hard for evidence that counters what I'm thinking as I have for what supports it. It takes me time, I'll go back over things - like here when I missed actually reading a link (about children missing from school where I had skimmed it thinking it was about abduction). It sounds perverse but there's a part of me wants the other argument to win, to give my own everything I've got and still get that feeling of a new penny dropping, something shifting in my own way of thinking - that's the whole point of all of it, the checking, reading, posting on sites like this, talking, and listening.

I get more frustrated with atheists than theists that don't get that, don't get why there's should be any motivation to read and consider. I at least understand why a person who has one book to work from wouldn't be motivated to look and think in new ways, I don't agree with them but I get it. When an atheist behaves like an elephant on a hot plate (a very big one as before!) some part of me thinks they must also be working from a single source or worse than that - just from their own opinion without even a notion of possibility they could be plain wrong. I think that's why ultimately I want to people to reason themselves to a lack of faith because there's less people around that I find the most annoying of all, the sort it's a total waste of time to talk to because there's nothing to learn, they don't dig in and get evidence and without it I don't get the penny drop feeling - also WHY are they so fucking rude?

I got roasted just for saying I thought Richard Dawkins would likely have fans - not calling everyone a fan, just saying that the number of people who follow his work would make it likely there were fans who agreed with stuff just because he said it!