Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

Still, it does not follow logically that God does not exist, and there are many who would argue God is far from extraneous.
:rolleyes: So?

Since when did it follow that atheism involved a logical assertion that gods do not exist? :confused:

Atheism, as I'm sure you know is simply a-theism; a life lived without any theism

I didn't get where I am today by conflating the term atheism with anti-theism, Reggie!

Are you, CJ? ;)

If so, why?
 
Last edited:
Nope, i'm using the traditional Christian doctrine of Ineffability - that no religion, Christianity included, represents the reality of God adequately. Or as I often say "on God I'm wrong -- and so is everyone else" - though I admit it's an unevidenced assertion. To me the difference between Norse paganism and Christianity is one of utility as a model for understanding a divine reality I have reason to believe exists. It's like why I'm an Anglican - it correklates well with my reading of reality. IF I was applying cost/benefit I'd be a Mormon.
Which only confirms what I said.

Sorry, but it's another bucket of fail. You have no evidence for the existence of any sort of god, so you define your god such that evidence is irrelevant. Under these conditions, the only rational position is weak atheism in the general case, and strong atheism in the specific case: I don't believe in gods, because there is no evidence for their existence, but I know your god doesn't exist, because it doesn't even make sense.
 
Good point. Just make a rational argument for the non-existence of god/ddess(e/s) then... :)
Complete lack of evidence for the existence of god/dess(e/s).

Nope. Any it doesn't?
How about a complete lack of evidence?

So my original formulation was as Mojo showed deeply flawed -- I'm not looking for rational arguments for atheism, but for the non-existence of Gods - the claim of Strong Atheism. :)
Perhaps you should have stated that in the first place.

Myself, I feel that the existence of any deity is illogical. Not only is a deity completely redundant - in that there is no process that occurs in the universe which has been demonstrated to require the existence of a deity in order to happen - but the possibility of the existence of a deity is also completely counter to the way we have come to understand the universe to operate.

So by postulating the existence of a deity, one is basically saying that the universe does not work the way we understand it to work. It is saying that cause-and-effect relationships between phenomena is misleading, since where our understanding always demonstrates material causes, the actual cause may be non-material. Essentially, if God exists, then the scientific method does not work the way we think it works.

Since the scientific method appears phenomenally successful at demonstrating the causes for events, and indeed is the only method which has been demonstrated to successfully predict future events, this is an untenable position.

However, in this line of reasoning, I am making the assumption that miracles are possible. A miracle is a phenomenon that has no material cause and is therefore only attributable to the intervention of a deity. However, this may not be a fair assumption. There are systems of belief that suggest that the deity does not meddle in material affairs in this way. My answer to that is what's the point in worshipping an absent god? In addition, miracles may admit to non-material explanations that are not divine.

I admit that it is possible that all of our scientific achievement is based on a flawed method. But I think the possibility is so remote that it can be definitively ruled out.

I do have another, separate argument, if you're interested. That is that the plurality of mutually exclusive religions suggests that is is more likely that all of them are wrong, than only one of them is right.
 
CJ you are dancing around what the “strong atheists” here are telling you.

It’s a matter of definition.. very few people are “strong atheists” by your definition.. they don’t .. “Believe there is no God”

They simple find the notion of a God irrational and extraneous.

The reason they associate with “Strong Atheism” is because others definitions sound like they are weekly admitting the idea of a god makes some sort of sense… it s a bit like saying if you are agnostic about the Easter Bunny you are allowing the notion some credence.

In short there is NO need for a rational argument for atheism as there is NO rational argument for a God !

You are using the classic old switch.. you are wrong because you cannot disprove my completely inane ridiculous claim.. the onus is on the person making the inane ridiculous claim to prove it…

You cannot “rationally” argue against the existence of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”.. but should you have to ????
 
Which only confirms what I said.

Sorry, but it's another bucket of fail. You have no evidence for the existence of any sort of god, so you define your god such that evidence is irrelevant. Under these conditions, the only rational position is weak atheism in the general case, and strong atheism in the specific case: I don't believe in gods, because there is no evidence for their existence, but I know your god doesn't exist, because it doesn't even make sense.

I have plenty of evidence for the existence of God(s). Why do you assert there is no evidence?

cj x
 
CJ you are dancing around what the “strong atheists” here are telling you.

It’s a matter of definition.. very few people are “strong atheists” by your definition.. they don’t .. “Believe there is no God”

They simple find the notion of a God irrational and extraneous.

Yet to be irrational, surely there has to be a rational belief to hold the opposite opinion? I have absolutely no problem with weak atheism/agnosticism. (I have no problem with strong atheism either, I just don't think it's rationally defensible.)

The reason they associate with “Strong Atheism” is because others definitions sound like they are weekly admitting the idea of a god makes some sort of sense… it s a bit like saying if you are agnostic about the Easter Bunny you are allowing the notion some credence.

Easter bunny? Insufficient data. Have never seen it personally. Could it exist? Well, we would have to consider the evidfential case, and make a decision thereupon.

In short there is NO need for a rational argument for atheism as there is NO rational argument for a God !

I think there are rational arguments for both, but that depends on my definition of rationality. :) Your formulation runs in to problems though - if there was no evidence for God, as Dawkins is fond of asserting, sure. However God is not an unevidenced assertion. Therefore you have to explain the evidence in other terms, or accept it. To show theism is irrational requires that you demonstrate atheism is rational?

You are using the classic old switch.. you are wrong because you cannot disprove my completely inane ridiculous claim.. the onus is on the person making the inane ridiculous claim to prove it…

Onus of debate only matters in debate. It is irrelevant in say science.

You cannot “rationally” argue against the existence of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”.. but should you have to ????

Yes you can. We have a large number of people who claim adhgerence to it, but has anyone actually yet been touched by His Noodly Appendage? Well maybe someone has. :) However as the FSM is known to exist - I have seen the photo which started it all - I would not argue it was not real. :)

cj x
 
Yes entirely. As I said it's completely unfalsifiable - I believe Bertrand Russell himself cited it as an example of a rational but unreasonable belief

cj x

Where then do you draw the line between a rational concept and an irrational one? Is the Christian God rational and The IPU (Bless Her Name) irrational?
 
Easter bunny? Insufficient data. Have never seen it personally. Could it exist? Well, we would have to consider the evidfential case, and make a decision thereupon.
Apply that same line of reasoning to God, and we'll be getting somewhere. :)
 
More importantly, does anyone have a rational argument for not collecting plastic juice cups with lipstick stains on them?

~~ Paul
 
If there is evidence for the existence of God(s), then how can people have doubt?

There is evidence for ball lightning, evolution, and many many other things but people dispute it. Evidence is not "proof" - and i use that word loosely. There can be evidence which is of an insufficient quality to actually be compelling. I think this is the case for the existence and non-existence of Gods - both are Inferred Best Explanation fits based on individuals reading of the data.

Take a simple one, is the universe going to keep expanding, or reach a point then contract? It's entirely rational (to my limited knowledge) to argue either position base don the current data. Both are veidenced, but only one is right.

cj x
 
I have plenty of evidence for the existence of God(s). Why do you assert there is no evidence?
Evidence is objective information that leads you towards one conclusion over others.

What is this evidence you claim to have?
 
Where then do you draw the line between a rational concept and an irrational one? Is the Christian God rational and The IPU (Bless Her Name) irrational?

Pink Unicorns! Bah humbug! I'll tell you about Pink Unicorns!

have you not read the Revelations of Noodle, the Pastafarian gnostic text?

Lo! on the 15th day when the small furry animals were a whitterin' and the birds a twitterin and the danish bikers smoking da weed on da beach, not much happened.
Yet on the sixteenth day, about the Twelfth Hour, if you lived in Attica, which no one in this Holy Text did, Larsen did yawn. And the Creationists did tremble and abase themselves: stercus maximus, world without end.
And on the seventeenth day Her Equine Horniness did grow bored, and note that the Humans did disparage her holy Name. And Lo, Hi, and Twist, she did decide to manifest in her glory.
And so it came to pass that in a basement where CJ laboured over a hot keyboard, bashing out a text on medieval hagiography, there was a smell of candy floss, and the Invisible Goddess did manifest. Her pinkness was beyond all human pink, and her visibility was beyond all human visibility - she was fully visible and fully invisible, and at the same time pink beyond all words. She was INEFFABLY pink.
CJ almost dropped his coffee. He was not expecting a visit from any Goddess, and if he had he might have cleared up a bit. Unfortunately the beatific vision before him was not entirely what he had in mind when he though of encounters with goddesses... Still, here she is, as far as humans can depict the vision he beheld.
unicorn_lge_candle.jpg

from http://www.horseandponysales.co.uk

He was appalled, and swiftly raised a copy of The God Delusion, and a Crucifix. The unicorn goddess ignored him, and contentedly munched upon the [carpet 1]. "Come not in that form, come not in that form!" yelled CJ, traumatized. He recalled the night when he was younger and pulled the cute goth chick only to find she was wearing My Little Pony knickers, and was so freaked even though she was 25 he had just made coffee and excuses. But that was Many Years Ago, and is chronicled in the Epistle to the Cheltonians, or rather is'nt cos it's embarrassing so we edited that bit out. [2]

"back back from whence ye came foul being of the Pit!" yelled CJ, advancing menacingly upon the unicorn goddess, armed with a stuffed mongoose.

The Goddess stopped grazing and looked thoughtfully upon him. "is this form displeasing to you?"

CJ gulped, and nodded. There was a flash of ineffable pinkness, pink beyond pink, and the Goddess instantly changed shape...

{Original contained picture of scantily clad girl with pink hair and unicorn horn on head - not appropriate for this forum}

CJ paused, and suddenly saw that actually this divine visitation had its positive side. He mentally resolved to avoid all horny jokes. "Er, goddess" he said, "come and tell em of wonderous things! Indeed, sit on my knee while we discuss the metaphysical implications of the Irenaean Theodicy."

And alas, those words were his undoing. Suddenly he was thinking theologically. "Goddess, by your physical manifestation - and i must say it is very physical and definitely INEFFABLE" - the unicorn goddess giggled, or neighed "do you not remove my gift of Free Will? Now I have seen you manifest, I can not disbelieve, so now I have no longer faith, but merely a pragmatic response to your divine existence?"

The unicorn goddess snorted derisively. She seemed strangely unimpressed, and a swift horn t the stomach caused CJ to decide to lay off the theology, but slowly she became troubled. "For without faith how can I respond freely?" CJ shouted, clutching his nads, which hurt noetically from the low blow.

"humph!" said the Goddess. "Some people are simply not worth manifesting to... but I'll check with Head Office, may have been a policy change." And she trotted off through the wall, and vanished.

And Lo! CJ did wail and gnash his teeth and was sore pissed off. Indeed do many things come to pass. [3]

Footnotes
1 Some early Phillistine texts here substitute the word 'yrgg', which is believed by some to mean 'the arse of his trousers.' However the translation is disputed, and most manuscripts favour "carpet".

2 The Epistle to the Cheltonians was written by Hugh of Newmarket, and theological differences lead to many discrepancies in accounts between this J text and the earlier H text which reflects an Eastern tradition strongly influenced by the consumption of Greene King ales.

3. CJ went on to become famous as the theologian with no horn, and was mocked by all. He was eventually martyred by being fed alive to a basket full of ravenous weasels after an unfortunate comment about a skepchicks hemlines led to his official excommunication from the Reformed Church of Dawkens. His followers, the lewdpervs are still found in Central Mongolia, practicing heretical doctrines and eating breakfast cereals.

cj x
 
Last edited:
Where then do you draw the line between a rational concept and an irrational one? Is the Christian God rational and The IPU (Bless Her Name) irrational?

To reply slightly more seriously, it depends entirely on how you define either: are they logically coherent concepts?

cj x
 
Last edited:
Evidence is objective information that leads you towards one conclusion over others.

What is this evidence you claim to have?

Let's play evidence a while then. Always good to get grounded. How about mystical experience? It seems pretty objective that if you do (X,Y,Z,) you can experience these states and that many people experience them spontaneously, and claim to encounter a deity?

cj x
 
Actually theoretically you can prove there is no God, as a negative can be proven. I understand that is not what you are saying though. Your argument is that is reasonable to not believe in God based upon your reading of the evidence. That I have no disagreement with - you have made that decision (and i have made a differing one.)

In the face of insufficient data one must either remain open to the possibilities and await further data, or make a personal choice. No disagreement at all there.

cj x

Ladies and gentlemen, I think this is clear evidence that theists can be rational. Good on you, CJ :)
 
Apply that same line of reasoning to God, and we'll be getting somewhere. :)

Yep. I made my decision - and do not regard those who make an absolutely opposite decision as irrational. However, I'm not claiming to "prove" a God, which would render atheism irrational - I'm saying if we can't disprove a God, is theism irrational? Myabe "of that which we can not speak, we must remain silent." Dunno -I was never one for Wittgenstien, or the later Logical Positivists

cj x
 
More importantly, does anyone have a rational argument for not collecting plastic juice cups with lipstick stains on them?

~~ Paul

Not without invoking a cost/benefit analysis. assuming the lipstick stains are from different ladies you bought the drinks it strikes me as a fine hobby, though not a fetish I am personally familair with. :)

cj x
 
Let's play evidence a while then. Always good to get grounded. How about mystical experience? It seems pretty objective that if you do (X,Y,Z,) you can experience these states and that many people experience them spontaneously, and claim to encounter a deity?
There are lots of biochemical explanations for "mystical states". Many people on LSD or peyote claim to have mystical experiences. Mystical experiences can be produced by electrically stimulating certain locations in the brain. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that such experiences have anything other than a biological origin.

Yep. I made my decision - and do not regard those who make an absolutely opposite decision as irrational. However, I'm not claiming to "prove" a God, which would render atheism irrational - I'm saying if we can't disprove a God, is theism irrational? Myabe "of that which we can not speak, we must remain silent." Dunno -I was never one for Wittgenstien, or the later Logical Positivists.
Nor I, and in fact I couldn't even tell you what Wittgenstein said. But you're not asking whether theism is irrational, you are asking whether atheism is rational. Take another look at the title of the thread.

Once again we come to the Great Divide between theists and atheists. Theists take belief in God as the default position and argue that one must take an active step in order to disbelieve. Atheists take nonbelief as the default, and it's belief that takes an active step. Each side continually fails to understand this about the other.

CJ, can I get you to indicate your understanding that "most atheists" (generalising, I know) do not feel that nonbelief is an active state? That for us, nonbelief is the default condition? I'm not asking you to actually accept it as factual, but can I get you to understand that we do?
 

Back
Top Bottom