Atheism. Outlived its usefulness?

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Normy

I don't believe in the Smurfs, and neither should you.

And I don't believe any religions- I don't need any outside code of conduct or imaginary characters to inspire me to follow one. I already know how to behave.

In the end, you may call it what you wish.

N

do fries come with that goose(step)?

Why pick on the Smurfs?

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

But, we digress. That is not what we are discussing in this thread. The original statement that we should substitute "rationalism" for "atheism" has been pretty thoroughly examined and seen to be lacking. Even its originator now concedes that "atheism" is only a component of "rationalism"., and not equal to, as he originally maintained.

I would argue that atheism is not rational. It is not the natural position of a rational man. Atheism requires the suppression of the natural man, of his natural knowledge of a god. In its extreme, atheism causes one to seek out anything at all that "disproves" a god, and the most irrational of arguments are given free pass. Stuart is at that end of the spectrum. I think you are a bit closer to the middle, but not much. That is merely an observation, based upon the nature of (both of your) your past replies.

Jeff, I find your method of argument dishonest. You make flying or obscure claims about positions you say other people hold which are- and I will extend the benefit of the doubt here- mistaken, then you deride the position you say they hold. I hope anyone reading this thread takes the time to read what posters actually say, and not what you say they they say.

The claims you make are, like this one: "In its extreme, atheism causes one to seek out anything at all that "disproves" a god, and the most irrational of arguments are given free pass. Stuart is at that end of the spectrum" are completely unsupported and border on being flat out lies. Show proof of this ridiculous statement.

Then you say you are "middle of the road" while stating: "I would argue that atheism is not rational. It is not the natural position of a rational man. Atheism requires the suppression of the natural man, of his natural knowledge of a god." Thats not MOR Jeff, it is unequivocally theist.

This thread is about the nature of rational thinking and why athiesm is part of it, not the other way round. You seem hell bent on turning this into a personal slanging match- Im not interested. I am going to point out though, any further, ah, inconsistencies in your representation of what other people say.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by tobster1911

By this definition you are definitely NOT a rational. Your own track record (and that of several others) has been not one of carefully reasoned, "I dont know for sure, but I have yet to see any evidence" but rather one of instant attack and belittlement. Even in this very thread you can not keep from dropping snide little comments in an attempt to paint yourself as superior.

Your own definition proves you to be IRrational. Just once show me a quote where you express ANY uncertainty in your position that God does not exist.

Then either I have expressed the point badly or you have misunderstood.

I can point you at any number of posts (certainly in the ITAG thread) where Ive put the position that atheists cannot know for certain the god does not exist without taking that position on faith. We cannot say for certain there is no god, just as you cannot deny the existence of the faeries in my garden, or of Bertram Russell's teapot.


To what snide comments do you refer? Ive looked back, dont see any. If only some of you guys could dial back the personal attacks and argue the matter at hand. Sadly, seems not.

[Superman]

There is a HUGE difference between an agnotic and an atheist. Agnostics are people who think. Atheists are arrogant cretins who want to impress you with their astounding logic, but who cannot seem to notice that their logic is entirely inferential.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

To paraphrase: Many of the atheists I know do not adopt the "to each his own" philosophy but demand that I abandon my beliefs the way that they have or face ridicule, etc. I ask them for justification for their demand and I'm typically given responses that I cannot grasp.

You know lottsa atheists?! What dark places you be hangin in?

The atheists I've known/know over the years were/are only vocal when someone else starts a conversation they care to join in on, or when confronted by someone trying to convince them to become a believer. Come to think of it, I've known a number of people for years before even finding out they were atheists.

In either of those two scenarios the spectrum of response tones ranges from "Oh, I respect your beliefs but they aren't mine, thank you" (and generally could care less whether the believer respects their non/disbelief or not) to the less genteel "I think you're nuckin' futs!" (which can be a response meant to egg the believer on just for the fun of it, or an expression of genuine amazement that anyone could believe what the beliver believes).

Of course the atheist will question the basis of theistic beliefs when theism is being discussed; and those beliefs may be ridiculed if the atheist feels harangued by a believer (usually to no avail, of course).

But I've never witnessed an atheist initiating a confrontation with a believer wherein the atheist attempts to convince the believer to become an atheist. Why would they even care to do that? I don't know a single evangelical atheist.

Maybe, I don't know, there are cases of "nouveau atheists", who aren't yet all that deeply convinced about their new convictions of disbelief, who get argumentative with believers in an unconscious attempt to find out what they really do believe or disbelieve (closet agnostics?), maybe a cry for help coming back into the fold? Actually, I do know two people who foresook their belief systems for atheism but later returned to them.

And please, let's not degrade that "cannot grasp" quote into some sort of argument for the intellectual superiority of atheists. While they do love to place themselves above the faithful in that regard,

The ones I've known don't have a condescending attitude (I've known a lot of believers who definitely do - perhaps the majority of them).

that is not what is meant in this context. "Cannot grasp" means the same thing here as it does in Mike's statement; their arguments are unsupportable and make no sense. They are unprovable; untestable. Often contradictory, and just as often changing. Faith based. As such, difficult for a rational mind to grasp.

Personally, I don't believe that "faith" need be, by definition, rational; it's more an extremely personal concept formed by the heart and soul (dare I say emotions?) rather than by reasoned analysis.

..

[Superman]

Originally Posted by stuartj

This thread is about the nature of rational thinking and why athiesm is part of it, not the other way round.

I would not even concede that atheism is any part of rational thinking. Agnosticism is, but atheism is not. There is a HUGE chasm between "I see no evidence of a God and therefore will not conclude there is one" and "There is no God." It can be argued there is sufficient evidence to support the first of those two statements. I have never, ever seen evidence to support the second statement. And.....I have a degree in Philosophy. I especially enjoyed the course called "Logic" and the discourses I have read on various aspects of theism.

I would ask a favor. If anyone thinks they have proof, or even evidence, that there is no God......I would very much appreciate receiving it. And so would the rest of the academic, religious and philosophical communitied around the world.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by stuartj

Jeff, I find your method of argument dishonest. You make flying or obscure claims about positions you say other people hold which are- and I will extend the benefit of the doubt here- mistaken, then you deride the position you say they hold. I hope anyone reading this thread takes the time to read what posters actually say, and not what you say they they say.

The claims you make are, like this one: "In its extreme, atheism causes one to seek out anything at all that "disproves" a god, and the most irrational of arguments are given free pass. Stuart is at that end of the spectrum" are completely unsupported and border on being flat out lies. Show proof of this riduclous statement.

Then you say you are "middle of the road" while stating: "I would argue that atheism is not rational. It is not the natural position of a rational man. Atheism requires the suppression of the natural man, of his natural knowledge of a god." Thats not MOR Jeff, it firmly theist.

Maybe I should have pointed out that I feel blind faith is irrational as well. Would that make you feel better? I now realize, after all, that I'm dealing with your "emotional investments", so I must tread lightly.

How can I "lie" about my own opinion? How can I offer proof of such? While not as deeply held as your own, I do, after all, have some emotional attachment to them. I would not lie about them.

Originally Posted by stuartj

This thread is about the nature of rational thinking and why athiesm is part of it, not the other way round.

Your implication, however, is that if atheism stands as a component of rational thinking, it must therefore exclude faith as a component of rational thinking. You make it clear in your introduction that you firmly believe it to be one or the other; that it cannot be both. That contention is, of course, untrue, and demonstrates an inability to think rationaly. You make the argument, then disprove it with your very own irrational assertions. You need to step back, emotionally, from this topic and at least try to consider it rationally. Dropping your emotional investment in atheism is the only was you will ever be able to view it objectively. Try it; you may find the clarity you so far lack.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Superman

There is a HUGE difference between an agnotic and an atheist. Agnostics are people who think. Atheists are arrogant cretins who want to impress you with their astounding logic, but who cannot seem to notice that their logic is entirely inferential.

And Supermen are kind souls that never say anything disparaging about others.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Your implication, however, is that if atheism stands as a component of rational thinking, it must therefore exclude faith as a component of rational thinking. You make it clear in your introduction that you firmly believe it to be one or the other; that it cannot be both. That contention is, of course, untrue, and demonstrates an inability to think rationaly. You make the argument, then disprove it with your very own irrational assertions. You need to step back, emotionally, from this topic and at least try to consider it rationally. Dropping your emotional investment in atheism is the only was you will ever be able to view it objectively. Try it; you may find the clarity you so far lack.

Precisely my point as well and yours too Jeff, from the first page of this thread. If an atheist cannot make the factual observation that his firm conclusion there is no God has no deductive proof and little (if any) inductive evidence, then engaging them in a discussion will be doomed from the start. Fruitless. Three things:

1) Deductive proof
2) Inductive evidence
3) Emotional conclusion

If someone does not understand the distinction between these three, then any discussion you might have with them will not be "rational."

[Burnin' oil]

My belief in the existence of a creator is based upon intellectual and rational thought. My doubts about the existence of a creator are entirely emotional.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Superman

There is a HUGE difference between an agnotic and an atheist. Agnostics are people who think. Atheists are arrogant cretins who want to impress you with their astounding logic, but who cannot seem to notice that their logic is entirely inferential.

Hmmm.....I've not met any atheists of the ilk you describe (not doubting that they exist) but I do know more than a few fundamentalist evangelical Christians who are convinced of just what you say; they hold out hope for the agnostics who are seen as still mulling things over and are therefore pontential converts.

If an agnostic thinks about it, or gives rational thought up to their emotions and concludes that atheism applies in their case, the evangelicals give up on the person, often proclaiming them to be arrogant cretans such as you describe, whether or not they really are and whether or not any kind of logic applies. Since belief/faith doesn't require logic, can one disbelieve/have no faith without applying logic?

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Superman

I would not even concede that atheism is any part of rational thinking. Agnosticism is, but atheism is not. There is a HUGE chasm between "I see no evidence of a God and therefore will not conclude there is one" and "There is no God." It can be argued there is sufficient evidence to support the first of those two statements.

IMO that position "I see no evidence of a God and therefore will not conclude there is one" is the position of a considered atheist- some call it agnostic atheism, perhaps with the modification ""I see no evidence of a God and therefore I will live as if there is not".

I thought one of the real outcomes of the ITAG thread was that the atheists pretty agreed on this. Many do not say there is no god, that would require evidence, and in the absence of evidence, a position of faith. A rational person does not take a position on faith (in this context).

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Maybe I should have pointed out that I feel blind faith is irrational as well. Would that make you feel better? I now realize, after all, that I'm dealing with your "emotional investments", so I must tread lightly.

.

This is a childish tactic Jeff, and a really good example of how you use it. This is where you lifted "emotional investments" from. Another thread, another topic, another context- and in reference to you, not me.

(It has been pointed out btw that 'amygdala' is misspelled in this quote- just to save anyone the trouble of pointing it out or using the term "intellectully superior ass")

Originally Posted by stuartj

Gosh, you do get testy Jeff- downright nasty like a school girl, really. You last raised this argument over Harley Davidsons. What you are having is an Amygdula Hijack- again- where your emotions overtake your logic. It prevents you from being able to have a rational discourse on a subject where you have an emotional invetsment- like this one, religion, or apparently Harley Davidsons. You got that thread closed, IIRC.

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by Superman

I would ask a favor. If anyone thinks they have proof, or even evidence, that there is no God......I would very much appreciate receiving it. And so would the rest of the academic, religious and philosophical communities around the world.

And if you have proof that God EXISTS please let all of us know as well as all the scientific communities around the world. Oh, that's right, there is none.

And where does a degree in Philosophy get one these days?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by DARISC

You know lottsa atheists?! What dark places you be hangin in?

The atheists I've known/know over the years were/are only vocal when someone else starts a conversation they care to join in on, or when confronted by someone trying to convince them to become a believer. Come to think of it, I've known a number of people for years before even finding out they were atheists.

Dark places? Many of my coworkers are atheists. Most give it little thought. Many of my coworkers are religious. They similarly give it little thought. I wouldn't know one from the other without asking. Both tend to be pretty rational people, and are capable of civil, enlightening discussion on the topic.

Originally Posted by DARISC

In either of those two scenarios the spectrum of response tones ranges from "Oh, I respect your beliefs but they aren't mine, thank you" (and generally could care less whether the believer respects their non/disbelief or not) to the less genteel "I think you're nuckin' futs!" (which can be a response meant to egg the believer on just for the fun of it, or an expression of genuine amazement that anyone could believe what the beliver believes).

The vast majority of atheists and theists will respond per your first example, at least in my experience. It's the irrational ones, with an emotional investment in the topic, that like to respond in the manner of your latter example. Like stuart, who leans decidedly towards "egging on just for the fun of it" for his motivation.

Originally Posted by DARISC

Of course the atheist will question the basis of theistic beliefs when theism is being discussed; and those beliefs may be ridiculed if the atheist feels harangued by a believer (usually to no avail, of course).

It goes both ways.

Originally Posted by DARISC

But I've never witnessed an atheist initiating a confrontation with a believer wherein the atheist attempts to convince the believer to become an atheist. Why would they even care to do that? I don't know a single evangelical atheist.

I suppose none of really "know" stuart, so you may be technically correct. His behavior on this forum is the epitomy of "evangilical atheism", however. He has established his position rather securely as such. He has a rather large emotional investment in his atheism that comes through in his posting.

Originally Posted by DARISC

Maybe, I don't know, there are cases of "nouveau atheists", who aren't yet all that deeply convinced about their new convictions of disbelief, who get argumentative with believers in an unconscious attempt to find out what they really do believe or disbelieve (closet agnostics?), maybe a cry for help coming back into the fold? Actually, I do know two people who foresook their belief systems for atheism but later returned to them.

I'm sure there is this type out there who have gone both ways. Nothing worse than a freshly "born again" evangelist espousing either his religion or his atheism. I think both use their enthusiasm as much to convince themselves as they do to convince others. Neither is thinking rationally.

Originally Posted by DARISC

The ones I've known don't have a condescending attitude (I've known a lot of believers who definitely do - perhaps the majority of them).

Interesting. I have met any number of atheists who carry a very condescending attitude towards believers. These atheists love to flaunt their "intellectual superiority" ans such over the po', simple, faithful redneck hicks of the world. Granted, I have met just as many pious individuals of faith, who lord themselves over others.

Both are the exception, however. Like I said above, most folks I meet don't wear this stuff out on their shirtsleeves. You have to ask to find out where they stand. It's the folks you don't have to ask, on both sides, that are the problem. The ones who just find a way to bring it up in almost any conversation, and do so not to enlighten, but to goad. Those with a huge emotional investment in one side or the other, like stuart. The folks that can't approach the topic rationally.

Originally Posted by DARISC

Personally, I don't believe that "faith" need be, by definition, rational; it's more an extremely personal concept formed by the heart and soul (dare I say emotions?) rather than by reasoned analysis..

I would agree, to the point of excluding reasoned analysis. Many have arrived at their faith through just such analysis.

[SirAndy]

Originally Posted by legion

Science be praised.

Amen ...

[DARISC]

[QUOTE=Superman;4116328]If an atheist cannot make the factual observation that his firm conclusion there is no God has no deductive proof and little (if any) inductive evidence, then engaging them in a discussion will be doomed from the start.

True enough. Is it then not also true that "If a theist cannot make the factual observation that his firm conclusion there is a God has no deductive proof and little (if any) inductive evidence, then engaging them in a discussion will be doomed from the start.

An atheist/theist who simply says "I don't believe there is a god/I believe there is a god" is, I don't know, a good, smart, bad, dumb, etc. person? That varies with the individual.

An atheist/theist who flatly and categorically says "There is no god/there is a god" is, uh...somebody I don't wish to attempt having a conversation with./QUOTE]
..

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Superman

I would ask a favor. If anyone thinks they have proof, or even evidence, that there is no God......I would very much appreciate receiving it. And so would the rest of the academic, religious and philosophical communitied around the world.

Your university called - they want their degree back. Surely they taught you that one cannot prove a negative?

I don't have any proof or evidence that purple badgers don't live on Titan. Are you going to argue that they exist since I cannot prove their nonexistence?

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

His behavior on this forum is the epitomy of "evangilical atheism", however. He has established his position rather securely as such. He has a rather large emotional investment in his atheism that comes through in his posting.

Your behaviour is disaapointing Jeff. There seems little honesty or honour in the way you attempt mount an arguement. You offer no support for the things you say others say. Where are these things you say I say? Quote them, and the context in which they were put.

You seem to argue from an emotive position, Jeff, from the vibe of it. You argue the personal, not the point on the table.

[IROC]

To go back to the original topic, how is it not rational to insist on evidence for the existence for something before believing it to be true? It has been argued that atheism is not rational, but how can it be irrational to demand logic or evidence for the existence for something before buying in to it?

For all of you who claim atheism is irrational, do you believe in the existence of the Hindu gods? If yes, then what evidence or logic convinced you of their existence? If no, then why not? There is as much "evidence" for the existence of Hindu gods as there is for the Christian god.